Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

High Technology

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider with leaders of high technology companies in Scotland whether a major exhibition sponsored by him might improve international awareness of the scope of high technology capability in Scotland and result in improved prospects for orders and jobs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): There is undoubtedly enormous potential for holding further events such as the Scottish computer and the Scottish electronics production shows, both of which took place recently in Glasgow. Proper facilities are required and I am pleased that the Government have been able, through the Scottish Development Agency, to help provide the new Scottish exhibition centre which opens next year.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is something of a paradox, in that the capability of the Scottish high technology industries, whether in research or production, is sometimes better known in countries across the Atlantic and Pacific than in this country and in Europe? Does he accept that there is immense scope for improvement in terms of Scottish jobs and the profitability of Scottish companies if we could grasp, through better communication and understanding, the opportunities that exist in Scotland and the achievements that have been made?

Mr. Stewart: Events in Scotland are certainly important, as my hon. Friend said. In November this year there will be the inspection, repair and maintenance exhibition in Aberdeen, and in September 1985 there will be the Offshore Europe exhibition. I have no doubt that Scottish companies will take the kind of advantage of those opportunities to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Gordon Brown: As there have been 1,145 closures in Scotland since 1979 — that is, one every working day—and as the vast majority of school leavers —71,000 leaving school this summer—have no hope of finding a regular job, something more than an international exhibition needs to be financed by the Minister. Is he aware that we need a programme of public works to stimulate the economy and get Scotland back to work?

Mr. Stewart: Since 1 June last year the Government have made selective financial assistance offers of £24

million to high technology industries. That is in respect of investment of £450 million. That will provide 5,000 new jobs and safeguard 1,800 jobs in high technology industries in Scotland. The success that we are having has been underlined by the announcement by Prestwick Circuits today.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the universities have a considerable part to play in this process and that Edinburgh and Heriot Watt universities in particular are performing extremely valuable work in developing technology?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right, although I would extend his comments to all the Scottish universities. There is an increasing awareness in the Scottish universities of the importance of developing effective links with industry and supplying the type of graduates that high technology and other industries need. That will be part of the remit of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which my right hon. Friend has set up to look at the need to ensure that higher education meets the needs of industry.

Mr. Ewing: The Minister referred to the exhibition centre in Glasgow. Is he aware that, if he were to house as an opening exhibition in that centre an exhibition of the Secretary of State and his industrial failures in Scotland, the centre would be packed to capacity and the exhibition would run for five or six years?

Mr. Stewart: That was a typically petty comment from the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that even he could bring himself to welcome the Scottish exhibition centre.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland enjoys an enviable reputation, especially in the United States, for its ability to attract high technology enterprises? Will he take this opportunity to place on record his admiration for the excellent work being done by the Locate in Scotland bureau in attracting those enterprises to Scotland? Does he, like me, find it pathetic that the Opposition are capable only of moaning about factory closures and never seem to be prepared to welcome the new enterprises that have come to Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. Locate in Scotland is widely recognised as a great success. It will be taking part in more than 30 major exhibitions in the United States and western Europe.

Mr. Dewar: If the Government are boasting about their success, why are there ever-lengthening dole queues and record levels of unemployment, with 330,000 Scots looking for a job at the moment? If that is success, perhaps the Minister could explain what, in his rather unreal world, would constitute failure?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that unemployment is a wide-ranging problem that affects the whole of the industrialised world. After all, he supported a Government who doubled unemployment in Scotland. No one is suggesting that the answers are easy. The Government's policies are designed to create the right competitive climate for real and lasting jobs. For the hon. Gentleman's information, the total number of jobs in Scotland was rising in the last quarter of last year, mainly as a result of the considerable expansion of service industries.

Edinburgh Bypass

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give priority to ensuring the completion of the Edinburgh outer city bypass within the agreed time scale.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Yes, Sir. We have offered Lothian regional council, which is responsible for the bypass, special financial assistance of one third of the cost of the remaining sections of the road.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the worst traffic congestion in the east of Scotland is on the Glasgow and Queensferry roads? I welcome the 30 per cent. contribution by the Scottish Office to the project, but does the Minister agree that it is vital for the project to be completed as soon as possible, in the interests of improving the infrastructure of the development areas of Scotland, as well as the amenity of Edinburgh and to relieve traffic congestion?

Mr. Ancram: As a local Member of Parliament, I am well aware of the need for that road. However, the timetable for completing this local road project is a matter for Lothian regional council. I understand that its current programme provides for completion of the four remaining sections by 1990 or 1991. Clearly, we shall wish to ensure, so far as possible within the constraints, that that timetable is adhered to.

Mr. Strang: But does the Minister accept that, although everyone is in favour of the outer city bypass, the real road issue in Edinburgh is the western relief road? Is it not clear, as shown by the recent elections, that there is massive opposition in Edinburgh to that proposal, which will do nothing but harm to the traffic situation in central Edinburgh? Would it not be nonsense to proceed with an inquiry based on the provisional order and waste all that money on a road scheme which everyone knows is a dead duck?

Mr. Ancram: The western relief road is also entirely the responsibility of Lothian regional council. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the council has deposited a draft provisional order, in accordance with the statute. A number of petitions have been received and lodged with my right hon. Friend on that basis. If those objections were sustained there would be an inquiry into the order by parliamentary commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen, as I understand he is, to have an inquiry, that will allow him to make the complaints that he wants to make.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister, who is the Member for Edinburgh, South, confirm that all the roads to be built around and into Edinburgh will not delay in any way the start and construction of bypasses around Maybole, Auchinleck-Cumnock and New Cumnock?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is what I feared.

Mr. Ancram: Can I answer that?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, go on.

Mr. Ancram: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on managing to introduce his own constituency into the question. Clearly, we must take a balanced view of the road needs right across Scotland. At the same time, in making financial assistance

available to Lothian regional council for the road, we are recognising its importance for communications within that area.

National Health Service

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funding has been made available to the National Health Service in Scotland, in real terms, since 1979.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger: ) Gross expenditure on the NHS in Scotland has risen from £883 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £1,760 million in 1983–84—almost double in cash terms. That has allowed for real growth of about 7 per cent. in the funding of the Health Service.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news and refutes the irresponsible statements by Socialist Members of Parliament and trade unionists about cuts in the Health Service? Will he confirm that there are approximately 6,300 more nurses than there were in 1979, and 400 more doctors and 175 more dentists than when the Labour Government were in power?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The facts and figures make the so-called "cuts campaign" about the Health Service look ridiculous. I agree that the figures for the increase in the number of doctors and dentists merely add more information to this obvious case.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the increased pay award for the nurses a week or two ago will mean that they are worse off now in real terms than they were in 1974, and as the Government assumed an increase in salaries of 3 per cent., does that not mean that in the event of nurses getting an increase of 6 or 7 per cent., there will be a worse service for the patients?

Mr. Younger: With his long-term interest in nurses, the hon. Gentleman should be more aware than anyone that it is this Government who have given the nurses a pay review body.

Mr. Hamilton: No.

Mr. Younger: It is this Government who have accepted in full that body's first recommendations. The Government have dug into the contingency fund to pay 80 per cent. of the cost from their own resources. I should have thought that any Opposition Member would welcome that.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the enviable position of Scotland in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom, in terms of a better ratio of doctors and nurses to patients, is being maintained under the Government?

Mr. Younger: Yes, that is so. It is a proper reflection of the fact that Scotland has greater health problems than the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the United Kingdom Government allocate extra funds to deal with that.

Mr. Canavan: How much additional funding and other resources would have been available to National Health Service patients if consultants at places such as Edinburgh royal infirmary had not been allowed to break the law by admitting private patients over the legally authorised


limit? Will the Secretary of State order an inquiry into that corrupt practice, to stop those highly paid consultants lining their pockets from the NHS?

Mr. Younger: As I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, such allegations could be the subject of prosecution or legal action, and as the matter could come to me in an appellate capacity, I think that I should make no comment, except that it is for the Lothian health board to investigate any such allegations, which I am sure it will do.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern, which is widespread in Scotland, that additional resources for patient care are not available because the health boards are dragging their feet in complying with the circular and inviting tenders for the provision of ancillary services?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is mystifying why some people in the Health Service are reluctant to face the possibility of getting excellent services in the Health Service for less money. In these matters, less money can mean more money to spend on patients. My hon. Friend is right on that point.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the people of Scotland are not persuaded by the continual juggling of figures by Conservative Members and that the real crisis in the Health Service should be measured by the serious squeeze on services that people are experiencing and the lengthening dole queues of doctors and nurses? When will the Secretary of State recognise that, if needs increase, resources must increase too, and that without those resources there is a real crisis in the Scottish Health Service?

Mr. Younger: I realise that it is most distressing to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that what they thought would be an extremely effective political campaign has fallen flat on its face because the facts do not support it. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in trends in the care of patients, he might like to know that waiting lists fell by 8,000 between March and September in 1983 and that there was an increase of nearly 30 per cent. in patients treated on a day basis in hospitals between 1978 and 1981. If that is not good progress, I should like to hear what is.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if cuts have taken place in the Health Service, they have been the direct result of such action by local councils as the 207 per cent. rates increase that Dundee district imposed, which resulted in millions of pounds being filched from the Health Service in Tayside region and spent by the council in Dundee?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend about the general position and with what he said about Dundee. The basic point, which the public have taken on board, is that, as the Government are spending more in real terms on the Health Service, it is extraordinarily difficult to imagine that as a cut in services.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Monklands-Cumbernauld district has the highest incidence of heart disease not only in the United Kingdom but in the world? Will he make special allowances for that?

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention. Heart disease causes great concern. If his area is especially bad, I shall certainly look into it.

Mr. Malone: Is the Secretary of State aware that the recent nurses' pay settlement has been widely welcomed in Scotland and in the Grampian region, where it is seen as an effective response to the representations of that profession?

Mr. Younger: It is entertaining to recall that the Labour Opposition spent weeks maintaining that the Government would not implement this pay review report. The Government have done so and the nurses appreciate it.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Secretary of State aware that in 1979 the Prime Minister said that the nursing profession, together with the armed forces and police, would be given special status? Is he aware that, over the period, the shortfall in the living standards of nurses in fact was 19 per cent.? The pay of a first-year nurse would normally be equivalent to a first-year policeman's salary. Is he aware that the weekly salary of a first-year ward sister is £23 behind that of a first-year policeman? Is he further aware that it is an affront to the service and a breach of promise to tell the House that 20 per cent. of the last wage settlement will be funded from existing services at the expense of patients and health services?

Mr. Younger: It is extremely difficult to make valid comparisons between different professions.

Mr. O'Neill: The Prime Minister did it.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that the independent review body recommended these rates of pay and that the Government implemented them in full, and paid for them largely from their own resources. Even the Opposition Front Bench would find it difficult to oppose that.

Hydatid Disease

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will fund eradication schemes for hydatid disease in the Western Isles and Skye.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Efforts to assist the local communities in these areas to combat the disease have been made for some years now by the veterinary and medical services. Discussions with a number of organisations are proceeding urgently with the aim of stepping up these efforts.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that veterinary bodies assert that such schemes could go ahead relatively cheaply, and that the cost of medical and surgical attention that may be needed for one patient may be higher than the cost of those schemes? In view of public anxiety, will he say when these schemes are to be put under way as a matter of urgency?

Mr. MacKay: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that a pilot scheme has begun in Skye to discover ways to eradicate the disease in dogs, because they carry it. We are also examining an appropriately self-contained area on Lewis to help our research. The cure lies in people dosing their dogs over a number of years to eradicate the tapeworm which the dogs carry.

Mr. Johnston: May I press the Minister on his use of the word "urgently"? Is he aware that the disease has been present for many years on Skye, which I represented before my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)? Although progress has been made, there have been no signs of urgency. How much would it cost to start some successful schemes?

Mr. MacKay: In response to the hon. Gentleman who no longer represents Skye, I can tell him that one reason why we are setting up pilot schemes is to assess their cost and effectiveness. However, there is no doubt that we should get the message over to the local community that their dogs carry the disease and that if they dosed their dogs for eight or 10 years, the disease would be eradicated.

Elsie Inglis Maternity Hospital

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the labour ward of the Elsie Inglis maternity hospital has been fully reopened on a permanent basis.

Mr. John MacKay: I understand that Lothian health board has reopened the ward, but only at present for mothers judged to have a very low risk of complications. Safe resumption of the range of deliveries previously Undertaken requires more medical cover. The board is already seeking to appoint registrars to Elsie Inglis and has instructed that rotation of doctors with other hospitals should be introduced.

Mr. Strang: That is a helpful reply as far as it goes, and we obviously welcome the steps recently taken by Lothian health board. However, does the Minister accept that tremendous support was shown for the staff and the hospital generally? Although there is still a suggestion that the hospital may not reopen on a permanent basis, will the Minister encourage the health board to ensure that it has a permanent future?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Royal College of Obstreticians and Gynaecologists withdrew training recognition from Elsie Inglis hospital because it was not conducting the range of cases which the college felt was necessary for training. Of the four maternity hospitals in Edinburgh, three are running at 50 per cent. capacity and under and the fourth is running at just over 50 per cent. We cannot continue to spend money on facilities that are not fully used when so many other matters in the Health Service require our attention.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that what we need in Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland is adequate funding? It is imperative that the Elsie Inglis is supported, because it is clearly an important local hospital. Will the Minister consider this matter and come forward with plans to support the hospital that are credible to the local community?

Mr. MacKay: The standard of care in all four maternity hospitals in Edinburgh is of the highest, and I reiterate the point, which the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have heard, that all four hospitals are running at roughly half capacity and under, simply because, for a variety of reasons, not enough mothers are having babies—[Laughter.]—and that trend will continue. We must consider realistically and seriously, despite the levity from the Opposition, how to use resources in the Lothian health board district.

Acid Rain

Mr. Craigen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on measures which the Scottish Office is taking to combat the effects of acid rain.

Mr. Ancram: The factors which lead to the formation of acid rain, and its subsequent effects on the environment, are complex and not clearly understood at present. Therefore, the primary need is for more research and my Department, together with the Department of the Environment, is funding an expanded programme in Scotland at a cost of about £400,000 this year. That is part of a United Kingdom programme of 1·8 million.

Mr. Craigen: With the publication of the Nature Conservancy Council report and the anxieties that it expressed on acid rain, does the Minister believe that the forests of Galloway and the highlands and the lochs of Scotland are at risk?

Mr. Ancram: The Government share the concern about acid rain, and that is reflected in our interest in ensuring that the causes and effects of it are properly understood. I have seen reports about some areas in the south-west of Scotland where a few lochs have shown high acid levels and low fish populations. At the same time, it is difficult to say whether that is caused by acid rain, by another natural phenomenon, or by a combination of both. Before we take other steps, we must understand the nature of the problem and the most cost-effective way of dealing with it.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are conflicting reports this week from the Nature Conservancy Council and the Department of Energy? Will he instigate within the Government generally, who have enormous research capabilities, a co-ordinated effort to discover what the problem is, because it will not go away? There is great anxiety in the population, especially in south-west Scotland, and the sooner we can resolve the problem the better.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed, the combining of the research efforts is a very important priority. The Scottish Development Department is at present compiling a register of all acid rain research being conducted in Scotland. This will be published in due course. While we recognise the seriousness of the problem, it is important that we do not draw conclusions and try out remedies which might not be effective until we are sure of the relationship between the cause and the effect.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister not think that the Scottish Office should take the lead, particularly since the acid soil and the underlying hard rock in Scotland have been pinpointed as being specially vulnerable? Is it not rather hard on Scotland that we have to be on the receiving end, since the Government have virtually ceased all industrial emissions in Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman answers the question himself. It is a matter for the Scottish Office because of the possible problems caused by acid rain. It is equally a problem for the Department of the Environment because of the possible causes of it. This is why the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office are jointly funding the research.

Regional Policy

Mr. Malone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from Aberdeen chamber of commerce concerning regional policy; and what response he has made.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The chamber was a party to a joint submission from Grampian region in response to the White Paper on regional industrial development. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has agreed to meet a deputation from Grampian to discuss the submission.

Mr. Malone: Is it not the case that in those representations Aberdeen chamber of commerce rightly highlighted the problem of the fish processing industry in an area that is no longer subject to regional development grants and contrasted it with other areas that are? Is it not the case that jobs in the fish processing industry are being moved from Aberdeen to other areas? Should not the moving of jobs in this way at the taxpayers' expense now be ended?

Mr. Stewart: Generally, regional policy is designed in part to move jobs to particular parts of Britain. In regard to indigenous industries and the fish processing industry, of course I recognise the general point that is made by my hon. Friend and by the chamber of commerce on their importance. These industries can benefit from Government schemes to help modernisation and innovation. A wide range of measures are available for small businesses. Investment in fish processing which meets criteria laid down by the European Commission qualifies for Government grants, which enables it to attract assistance from the Community's FEOGA scheme.

Mr. James Hamilton: As the Minister will be aware, the assumption on which the remarks made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) is based is inaccurate, bearing in mind figures that I have received from the Library, which show that since 1979 in north Lanarkshire there has been an increase of 129 per cent. On that basis there is a great deal of work to be done by the Government, not only in north Lanarkshire, but in Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Stewart: That is why the White Paper has confirmed the Government's commitment to an effective regional policy.

Mr. Bruce: While I acknowledge that the Minister has said that innovation grants are available to firms in the Aberdeen area — I am pleased that two in my constituency have recently been given such grants—will he nevertheless confirm that Aberdeen chamber of commerce and Grampian regional council are concerned at the lack of support for traditional and rural-based industry, apart from fish processing, where there has been a cutback in my constituency? Will he take that on board when he is considering future regional policy? Oil is not the only industry in the north-east of Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: Of course indigenous industries are important, as the White Paper has confirmed. With regard to small firms, we announced at the end of last week a new scheme which will assist small firms throughout Scotland. As for the Grampian area, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been as pleased as everyone else to see the announcement this morning by Taits of Invererie

about substantial expansion. I am delighted that the available schemes of innovation have been of assistance to the hon. Member's constituency.

New Town Development Corporations

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the new town development corporations; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I last met the chairmen on 14 May 1984 when a number of subjects of mutual interest were discussed, including the new towns' development profiles and the promotion of inward investment.

Mr. Hogg: When the Minister and his right hon. Friend met the chairmen of the new town development corporations, did they discuss the working party report on the future of the new towns? If so, did they tell the chairmen when that report was likely to be published? Moreover, may I have an assurance that when the report is published it will deal not only with the hand-over to local government but with the need for the new towns to continue to promote industry, particularly in the light of the bad news that there are to be 97 redundancies at Burroughs Machines in Cumbernauld?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the disappointing announcement from Burroughs, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that should be set against a background of the net increase of 1,000 jobs in Cumbernauld over the past 12 months, encouraging expansions and an opening at Berkeley glassworks. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the good news as well.
The working party was set up by my right hon. Friend when he announced that, in principle, housing would be transferred to the district councils following the eventual winding-up of the new towns. That working party, which consists of representatives of the corporations, district councils and IDS, is considering in advance the transfer arrangements. I understand that the report will be available later this summer.
My right hon. Friend has confirmed that no new towns will begin to be wound up before the end of the 1980s. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sensible to consider the transfer arrangements well in advance.

Mr. Lambie: When the Secretary of State last met the chairmen of the new town development corporations, did he discuss with them the possibility of opening their board meetings to the public and issuing the minutes of those meetings to the press and the public in order to bring an essence of democracy into the new towns' administraton?

Mr. Stewart: The admission of the press and the public to development corporation meetings is a matter for the development corporations. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of the issues discussed at those meetings and recorded in the minutes are commercially confidential. My right hon. Friend has taken the view that it would not be right for him to direct corporations to open their meetings to the press and public. The corporations do everything that they can to tell people about their activities, but they are different bodies from local authorities.

Mr. Craigen: The Minister has confirmed that the working party report will be available later this summer. When he met the chairmen of the new town development corporations did he give them any information about the time scale for the legislation that will be required for the transfer of housing functions, as distinct from industrial matters?

Mr. Stewart: We discussed the general question of the development profiles, which are designed to determine the percentage of the designated population at which the new towns will begin to be wound up. We shall be making an announcement on that in due course. Comments by local authorities, for example, on the development profiles are still being studied carefully.

Dundee Airport

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Dundee airport.

Mr. Younger: I have no current plans to do so.

Mr. Wilson: Instead, will the Secretary of State look at the representations that have been sent by the Dundee project team of the Scottish Development Agency to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer showing that, because of inadequate Customs arrangements, commercial and industrial development has been blighted in the new enterprise zones? Will he undertake, having had a look at those papers, to make representations to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet Sub-committee to the effect that changes should be made to allow Dundee airport to fulfil its role in attracting industry and to become more successful than it is already?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I am aware of the case that the Dundee project team put forward to my right hon. Friend. I understand that the Customs and Excise has been taking the view that the volume of potential traffic at Dundee would not justify additional facilities. However, it may be that there is scope for further discussions with it on that matter. I hope that a satisfactory outcome can be reached.

Mr. Bill Walker: I declare an interest as a flying member of the Tayside flying club. When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of Dundee airport, will he bear in mind that the charter operators operating out of Dundee airport—in particular, Tayside Aviation, which has been largely responsible for the flying development on that airfield—tell me that without the Customs facilities there is little scope for cashing in on the lucrative oil market?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. As I said earlier, I think that this ought to be pursued by further discussion and negotiation, and I will be glad to play my part in that.

Mr. Allen Adams: Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State must be concerned about the future of all airports in Scotland, can he give the House some statement or undertaking about the development of Glasgow airport in the middle of——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sadly, that is not the question.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the funds which have

been made available to local housing authorities are sufficient to enable them to meet the current need for new building and repairs.

Mr. Ancram: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is evidently as complacent as ever. Does he realise that in East Lothian the housing waiting list is 15 per cent. higher than it was only a year ago, and that we have 800 houses to build? Is he not aware that in East Lothian district there are 870 council houses in urgent need of modernisation? Is he not further aware that there are 1,200 private houses in East Lothian below the tolerable standard? Surely he must understand that in one small district like that we already know that the proceeds of council house sales will not go even halfway towards meeting the cost of all that essential work, so how does he expect East Lothian district council and other such councils to fulfil their housing responsibilities?

Mr. Ancram: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there was a nil net allocation for East Lothian in this year's HRA. The reason is that the estimated receipts, which are worked out in conjunction with the council, amount to £6·6 million. The council's bid for this block was £6·27 million. Therefore, there was an excess of the receipts over the bid, and there was a nil allocation. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about this, perhaps he could take it up with his own housing authority.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why council house sale receipts may not meet these needs is that Labour-controlled councils such as Stirling are going out of their way not to tell tenants about their new rights under the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984, and will he take steps to make sure that people are aware of the increased benefits in terms of discounts, and the increased rights that the Act provides, so that these funds can be made available for housing repairs and new build?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I agree with him that it is essential that we publicise the new rights that will be available to council house tenants from July onwards. It is also important to point out to housing authorities in Scotland that, if they fail to sell council houses and if they fail to pursue a vigorous sales policy, they are doing themselves out of receipts which, as my hon. Friend says, they could use to deal with the serious problems which undoubtedly exist in many authorities.

Mr. Maxton: How can the Minister so arrogantly say yes to a question which asks whether there are sufficient resources being given to housing when the Select Committee report dealing with dampness in housing shows clearly the misery in which thousands of people in Scotland are living because of dampness? The Secretary of State has rejected that report out of hand in a contemptuous way.

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman of what provision has been made. The overall provision for housing in Scotland this year is £388 million, compared to £355 million allocated in March 1983. Of that on the HRA block, the allocation is £227 million. The check list suggests that the cost of dealing with the problems of condensation and dampness would be about £190 million. It is clear from that that in a programmed


way the problem can be dealt with. It obviously does not help district councils such as Glasgow district if they voluntarily and wittingly forgo £5·5 million on rents, by their own decisions, which could have been spent on the eradication of dampness and condensation.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is breathtaking hypocrisy for Opposition Members to complain about the funds for housing when the Labour party in Glasgow has declined to increase rents, thereby denying funds that would be available to repair houses, and, worse still, is prepared, at a cost of £2 million, to demolish a block of flats for which a private buyer has offered £700,000? Will he give the House an assurance that he and his ministerial colleagues will not allow the Labour mafia in Glasgow to cheat the ratepayers and people on the waiting lists?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend, and should point out that the Labour mafia in Glasgow is cheating the council house tenants for whom it claims to speak just as much as the ratepayers. Labour Members criticise our housing policy, but it is worth remembering that when the Conservative party came to office in 1979 there were 120,000 sub-tolerable standard houses in Scotland, whereas there are now 81,000. That is a reduction of one third during our term of office.

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in Midlothian, and Newtongrange in particular, there is great concern about the allocation of financial resources for housing? The Castle Rock housing association had to give £210,000 of ratepayers' money to the Lothian estates when the lease expired on the land and buildings. Is that not an abuse of the law, and should not something be done about it?

Mr. Ancram: I understand that that was done on an agreed and properly carried out valuation.

Mr. Maclennan: Given the evident lack of agreement between the Government and local authorities about current housing needs in Scotland, is not the time ripe for a wide-ranging independent inquiry into them, which would cover the condition of Scottish public and private housing, its availability in locations where needed, and its deteriorating condition, along the lines of the Cullingworth report in the 1960s?

Mr. Ancram: As a Government, we are obviously concerned to receive as much information as possible. Certain ad hoc inquiries are taking place at the moment into particular housing problems. In addition, housing authority check lists are providing us with much more information than would be possible, for example, from a house condition survey.

Mr. Hugh Brown: The Minister's answer to the original question was yes, but does he not accept that no one else in Scotland apart from him — including, probably, the official who wrote that reply — believes that there are enough resources for Scottish housing? Will the hon. Gentleman come clean and admit that the Government do not want a building programme for public sector needs, other than for the disabled and elderly?

Mr. Ancram: I have often made it clear that the priorities in Scottish housing have changed. There is now a crude surplus of housing over households in Scotland, and so the need now is qualitative rather than quantitative. That is why we are concentrating on special needs areas.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was wrongly pleased to refer to as the Labour mafia in Glasgow has just won a sweeping and comprehensive victory in the council elections? Has not the Conservative party's claim to speak for Scottish opinion been further eroded and undermined by its miserable performance in the European elections? Is it not the clear view of the people of Scotland that a more generous view should be taken of the housing capital allowances? Is it not contemptible of the Minister to suggest that in some way, as a matter of pride, this year's HRA should be £227 million when that is less in cash terms than in 1979 and disastrously less in real terms? It is nonsense to suggest that any district council can effectively tackle the appalling scourge of damp in our council housing stock merely by re-ordering its priorities. That would mean no modernisation, re-wiring or new build. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that and revise his policies.

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us at some time — there is a housing debate tomorrow in the Scottish Grand Committee in which he could do so—his view of Glasgow district council's decision on the Hutchison E block. As a Member for Parliament for a Glasgow constituency, he might also like to tell us what he has told his district colleagues about their decision to forgo £5·5 million in order to freeze the rents for political purposes.

Agricultural Development

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to secure European Economic Community funding for agricultural or integrated development programmes for the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas of Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: It is for the European Commission to come forward with proposals for any such development programmes. My right hon. Friend has undertaken that, should the Commission do so, its proposals would be given careful consideration.

Mr. Bruce: But did not the discouragement shown by the Government towards the previous proposals lead to the Commission not proceeding with them? Are not the Government misleading us if they expect us to accept their view? Will the Minister acknowledge the problems of the rural areas of Scotland—and not only in the Highlands and Islands—and accept that the restructuring of the CAP will require direct assistance? The Government must ensure that hill farmers obtain a living that can underpin the rural economies throughout Scotland.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. We have consistently promised to consider any Commission proposals. It is the clear duty of the Commission to propose and the Council of Ministers to dispose. We have always made that position clear.
I remind the hon. Gentleman about the recent package of help for the farming community in Scotland. I appreciate the problem for the dairy farmers, but it is caused by the milk surpluses. The sheepmeat regime continues, the suckling cow premium has doubled, there has been an increase in wool prices and the hill market stock compensatory allowance in the Highlands and


Islands will have a supplement added to it in the autumn review. All those are positive Government actions to help the hill and upland areas of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Industrial Disputes (Injunctions)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask the Scottish Law Commission to consider the issue of problems associated with High Court injunctions in matters of industrial dispute.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): No, Sir. The Government do not intend to ask the Scottish Law Commission to consider these matters as part of the commission's work on law reform.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Solicitor-General recall the day that I accompanied busloads of ladies from Plessey's at Bathgate to the High Court to defend their jobs? Should industrial relations be legal relations rather than human relations?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The particular section of the 1974 Act on which the court in Edinburgh determined that matter has, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, now been repealed. There are differing policy views about whether such matters should properly come before the court. I scarcely think that it is appropriate for the Scottish Law Commission to be asked to arbitrate on such differences of policy. Its responsibility is to deal with legal questions in connection with law reform.

Mr. Ron Brown: Whatever the Law Commission may think, is it not the case that the real criminals are in the Government? The working classes have no ill intent—and especially not the miners. Yet is not the law repeatedly used against the working class? The police state is being built up and, especially in Scotland, the law is aiding and abetting the police state. Whether or not the Government like it, they are indicted because of their policies.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman uses many legal phrases. However, it is clear from the general import of his question that he does not understand the substance of the rule of law.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people have been charged as a result of incidents arising from the miners' strike; and with what they have been charged.

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases have been reported to procurators fiscal in connection with the miners' strike; and how many prosecutions have been made.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Seven hundred and seventy-six people have been arrested, charged and have been or may be reported to the procurators fiscal in connection with incidents arising out of the miners' strike. The majority have been charged with breach of the peace and contravention of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Other charges include vandalism, assault, trespass, possession of an offensive weapon, a contravention of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and

a road traffic offence. To date, five have been convicted and another 338 are awaiting trial following pleas of not guilty.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the deplorable scenes at Orgreave earlier this week, and the possibility that the British Steel Corporation may restart convoys of coke lorries to Ravenscraig, will the hon. and learned Gentleman remind the police that peaceful picketing is not a crime? Will he, with me, condemn picket line violence from whatever source, to avoid a repetition of the bloody pitched battles provoked by hooligans in uniform using truncheons and horses' hooves to beat the miners into submission?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am perfectly willing to say that peaceful picketing is not a criminal offence. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to tell his friends that the TUC code of conduct suggests that there should be only six people on a picket line.

Mr. Canavan: That is not the law. It is purely voluntary.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Simply because something voluntary emanates from the TUC does not mean that it should be ignored — but perhaps I have misunderstood the role of the TUC.
For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that condemnation of violence should be directed only against those who have the luckless task of trying to keep order between those who want to work and those seeking to stop them doing so is wholly wrong. If the hon. Gentleman truly had the interests of his constituents at heart, he would condemn the violence which, regrettably, we have seen not only in England but in Scotland.

Mr. Malone: Can my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that no special instructions will be given to procurators fiscal in respect of the prosecution of miners arrested while picketing? Can he also assure the House that they will be treated in the same way as other common criminals, because that is what they are?

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These matters are sub judice and it is not right for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) to describe untried people as common criminals. It is even more dangerous for the Solicitor-General to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware of the sub judice rule and I have been listening carefully. I apologise to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), because I should have called him first.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall answer the first part of the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone). I have said before, and I am happy to reiterate it, that no special instructions are being given with regard to any offences arising out of incidents on picket lines involving miners.
As I implied in my answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), the charges that have been made so far in those cases that have already come before the courts are in no way for special offences. They are ordinary offences, which my hon. Friend will have seen in the sheriff court frequently in his practice. There is nothing unusual or special about them. We are concerned only to ensure that no criminal offences are being perpetrated on the picket lines in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Solicitor-General and the rest of us can condemn violence and other things until we are blue in the face, but it will not solve anything. What does the Solicitor-General think about the fact that the police and the courts are now so deeply involved in this industrial dispute on behalf of the Coal Board and the Government? Will he accept that the Government have taken industrial relations back to the grim, bleak days when weapons, arrests, the use of horses and threats of financial deprivation for miners' families were commonplace? Would it not be more sensible to get this affair resolved by negotiation rather than by litigation and prosecution?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is appalling that the police and the courts have to be involved in this matter. However, while there are people trying to get to work, and other people are trying to stop them, and there are on those occasions breaches of the criminal law, it seems to me, unfortunately, that both the police and the procurators fiscal have to be involved, and eventually the courts will have to be involved. If that could be avoided, that would be desirable. However, I am not prepared to say that, because this is an industrial dispute, if there have been breaches of the criminal law we should turn a blind eye to them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that miners in Scotland have a legal right to work if they so wish, and under the law of Scotland are free to do so?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am happy to confirm that, and that is what the police are seeking to do. They are trying to ensure that, when people want to work, they have the opportunity to do so, without being threatened either by violence or sheer weight of numbers.

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the figures that he gave the House in reply to the questions show that the time has arrived for conciliation, not confrontation? Will he do everything that he can to endorse the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) in getting negotiations going — something that this Government should have done a long time ago?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In this matter, my unhappy responsibilities are to ensure that where there are breaches of the criminal law they are properly brought before the courts and are dealt with fairly and impartially by those courts. It is not for me to become involved in negotiations on the strike. All I can say, and I repeat it, is that if there are people breaching the criminal law in Scotland, in pursuance of their industrial action, without regard to the fact that it is an industrial action we shall prosecute.

Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the police have been subjected to a deplorable amount of violence on the picket line? Will he accept that the relatively low number of prosecutions confirms the good humour and tact of the police in handling picketing?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, Sir. The police have an extremely difficult job to perform. Recently, we have not had quite the same violent incidents that have been experienced in the south, but I should have thought that the House would appreciate the difficulties of the police in trying to keep order on these occasions. Yet again, there is a stunning silence from the Opposition Benches in the condemnation of violence.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that we have all repeatedly condemned violence? I do so again on this occasion. Will he accept also that it is important that we try to keep down the temperature? Will he dissociate himself from the statement that has been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) to the effect that everyone who is charged is, by definition, a common criminal? That is an assumption that the hon. Gentleman would have resented deeply if it had been made against any client whom he represented in the criminal courts.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the hon. Gentleman has taken up the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) in the wrong way. Those who are charged with criminal offences arising out of incidents in the current industrial action do not fall into a special category. If they are to be convicted by the courts, they will be convicted because they have been in breach of the criminal law of Scotland. They do not fall into any special classification. In those circumstances, the description that my hon. Friend has given them is wholly accurate, once they are convicted.

Parliamentary Language

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is "common criminal", when used to describe an uncharged person, a parliamentary expression? Surely it is as bad as anyone calling someone else a liar.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I did not hear any one accuse another Member of this place of being a common criminal.

Mr. Dalyell: I make no complaint for being suspended for five days for calling the Prime Minister a liar, Mr. Speaker, but someone else has called uncharged miners common criminals. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Surely it is quite as bad to describe uncharged miners as common criminals as anything that I said about the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am concerned with order inside this House. Hon. Members must take responsibility for their own statements. The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are outside the House. I am responsible for statements made in the House about fellow hon. Members.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood it to be a rule of the House that we should not refer to issues that are sub judice. The miners who have been arrested and charged have certainly not yet received a fair trial. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) is a lawyer and he knows all about these matters. He has deliberately referred to these miners as common criminals. Surely he should be made to withdraw. I would withdraw if I had said it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) must be responsible for his own statements in the House. As the House well knows, I am concerned only with accusations that are made about hon. Members.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates to your interpretation of the sub judice rule. It is fairly obvious that in the days ahead we shall be in difficulty when Law Officers answer questions on whether miners have been charged and prosecuted. In view of the dangers that lie ahead, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to operate the sub judice rule on the strictest basis possible. There can be no doubt that both the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), and even more surprisingly the Solicitor-General for Scotland, have prejudiced the trial of every miner in Scotland who has been charged over the past few weeks. There are now no circumstances in which the miners referred to by the Solicitor-General for Scotland can possibly have a fair trial.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening very carefully. The whole House may be assured that in these exchanges I listen with great care for reference to sub judice matters, but no individual names or cases were mentioned at all in the exchanges this afternoon.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of this exchange it was made clear by the spokesman for the Government that there had been 700-odd arrests of miners. That was the information that had been requested. From them on,

discussion centred around those miners who had been arrested but not prosecuted. The result was that the tinpot lawyer who supposedly represents Aberdeen, South then made the charge that those miners were common criminals. On many occasions, Mr. Speaker, you and your predecessors have clearly said that when matters are before the court it is wrong for hon. Members—with special reference to hon. Members on the Opposition Benches —to invoke the idea that people have been charged and prosecuted. You and your predecessors have referred in the main to individuals because in most cases it is simply individuals who are before the courts. Each of those 700 miners is an individual case. One cannot think of them collectively and say, "Let us forget about the miners because there are a lot of them, and anyway, they are only miners." If it was Lord So-and-So, the matter would be regarded differently. I suggest that when people collectively—working-class people, who are the wealth creators — are branded under the so-called sub judice rule, they should be treated in exactly the same way as any of those establishment figures whom you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessors have gone to great lengths to protect.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that in the past it has been the practice in this House to describe as hooligans persons who attend football matches, and who are subsequently charged, in similar circumstances, with breaking the criminal law? Is it not the case that there is nothing unusual about what has happened today?

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that you study Hansard tomorrow, and that when you have had an opportunity to see precisely what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) said, and the context in which he said it, you should give us a ruling.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that hon. Members must be responsible for what they say. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has had plenty of opportunities to clarify the issue. However, hon. Members are not really responsible for what they say about people outside the House because, presumably, they are protected by parliamentary privilege. The hon. Gentleman has cast a slur. He has suggested that all those people are common criminals, despite the fact that their cases have not yet come before the court. Is there some way in which you can protect citizens outside the House from irresponsible hon. Members inside it?

Mr. Ron Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an established rule in this country, although perhaps not in this Chamber, that an individual is innocent until he is proved guilty, whether he is a miner or a layabout lord? Should you not rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and make that clear to fancy-pants lawyers and other hon. Members on the Government Benches?

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are two separate questions to be considered. The first is whether citizens who have been charged but not convicted can rightly be described as common criminals without impinging upon their ability to receive a fair trial. The second point is


whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, (Mr. Dalyell) has suggested, you might consider this matter at your leisure rather than make a decision immediately in an off-the-cuff manner.
Might I observe, though not in any offensive sense, as we all occasionally say things that we later regret, that if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) said that these people are common criminals—I know how experienced he is in these matters and do not for a moment believe that he would hold to that view after calm consideration — it would help the House if he would clarify the point and withdraw the allegation, making it clear that he does not make that assertion and will not maintain that someone who has been charged but has not been convicted could properly be described as a common criminal. If he made that clear, it would help the temper of the House, although the technical point is still worthy of investigation.

Mr. Gerald Malone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to make my position clear on this matter. I am somewhat surprised that it has been interpreted as it has by Opposition Members. I understood my position to be perfectly clear. It is that no distinction should be made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General when people are being prosecuted, be they common criminals or miners on the picket lines. I made no allegation about people who have been arrested and are awaiting trial. My comments were clearly directed towards the policy of the prosecution of anyone, be he a common criminal or not.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. These exchanges clearly show that we must exercise extreme caution in the language that

we employ in the House. We are certain to have exchanges such as this in the future. It would be extremely difficult for the House if we could not have many questions on these important matters, but we must be cautious about the subjudice rule.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the exchanges that have taken place, is it not crucially important to see what the Official Report says? Will you give an instruction that it will not be doctored by anyone on the other side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I examine the Official Report carefully every day. I shall look at the report of these exchanges very carefully and shall ensure that it is not changed. It never should be.

Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Official Report shows that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South described miners who have been charged as common criminals—among them is a highly respected councillor in my constituency — will you give the House an assurance that tomorrow the hon. Member will be made to withdraw that remark?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has already done that.

Several Hon. Members: No, he has not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given his interpretation of what he said——

Mr. Canavan: We shall see what Hansard says.

Mr. Speaker: —and we shall see what the Official Report says, yes.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council which met in Luxembourg on 18 and 19 June. I represented the United Kingdom, together with my right hon. Friends the Minister for Overseas Development and the Minister for Trade. Ministerial negotiating conferences with the Portuguese and the Spanish and a ministerial meeting of the EC-Yugoslavia Co-operation Council were held in the margins of the Council.
The Council discussed preparations for next week's European Council. I made it clear that if discussion at Fontainebleau was to be of real value, the negotiations started at Stuttgart must also be completed.
On the budget question, I took the opportunity to have a series of separate meetings with each of my Community colleagues, the President of the Commission and the French Presidency. I made clear the view of the British Government that it remains to complete the negotiation on the basis of the texts circulated by the French Presidency at the Brussels European Council by reaching agreement on the notional figure for 1983. This would determine the scale of our contribution td the Community in future years.
There was also some discussion of the Commission's proposal for a loan to cover the forecast budget overrun in 1984. A number of member states again expressed reservations about the proposal, reinforced by a recent report by the European Court of Auditors, which criticised the Commission's estimates. I reiterated the need for further savings to be found. The issue was remitted to the July Budget Council.
The Council agreed that further work on budget discipline should be undertaken by Finance Ministers. I reminded the Council that an effective system of budget discipline remains one of our conditions for an overall settlement.
The Council discussed the Community's position for the ministerial negotiating conference in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June between the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific signatories of the Lomé convention on a successor to the present convention.
The Council also considered possible changes in the conciliation procedure for reconciling disagreements between the European Parliament and the Council. In view of Danish opposition, however, no text was adopted and discussion was adjourned.
At the ministerial conference with the Portuguese, the Community presented declarations on agriculture and on some outstanding points in the external relations chapter. At the ministerial conference with Spain, the Community presented substantive declarations on agriculture and industrial tariff transition.
The Council formally adopted the new regulation for the European regional development fund, following a successful conciliation procedure with the European Parliament.
The Council discussed a package of 15 directives designed to agree common standards for industrial products throughout the Community. We made it clear that the few outstanding technical problems should be speedily

resolved so as to clear the way for adoption of the package and of the common commercial policy regulation to which it has been linked.
Finally, we underlined the importance of agreement at the July Council on arrangements for continuing supplies of duty-free newsprint for 1984.

Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Stuttgart summit. May I remind him that it is a full year since that summit, at which agreement was achieved on the rebate for 1983? How much longer does he expect we shall have to wait for that rebate to be paid? In particular, is he confident that it will be paid before September, when the Community finally runs out of money in the bank?
The Foreign Secretary also referred to the private meetings that he had in the corridors around the Council. He will no doubt be aware that three of the papers—printed on the newsprint which is to be free of duty—contain reports of what went on at those meetings. Two of the three describe his offer as a "compromise" on the British position, and the third refers to it as a "concession". I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on having in record time achieved the first climbdown in the Government's position since the election.
It is surely the case that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman offered a compromise, he obtained some sign of movement from those with whom he was negotiating. Will he share with the House what offers of compromise he obtained from the other member states in return for the compromise which he offered them?
The Foreign Secretary said that he pressed for further savings in the Community budget. May we have an assurance that one of those savings will be found in the social and regional funds which, until last week, his party was assuring us were so valuable to the inner-city areas of our country? Having committed his Government to expanding those funds, he will surely not now connive at those funds being cut.
May I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, published today, which calculates that the increase in our own resources to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed in principle will add £670 million to our net contribution to the Community budget? Will he confirm that such a sum would virtually wipe out the amount of rebate that he has been negotiating this week? What, if anything, did he secure this week in Luxembourg that could possibly justify him in asking the House to agree to such a whopping increase in our payments to Brussels?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was, as the hon. Gentleman points out, a clear commitment to pay refunds to this country for 1983. The refunds are due to be paid during the current year and we plainly expect that agreement to be honoured.
I reiterated our position at the discussions which took place this week. We believe that it should be possible to resolve the remaining differences. What is now needed is on further move to clinch an agreement. As Chancellor Kohl told the press after his meeting with President Mitterrand on 20 May, that progress can be achieved only if
all sides move towards each other.
That remains our position and there is no question whatever of any climbdown.
The savings that have to be found need to be sought prudently in every area where they can sensibly be found —[Interruption.]—yes, in every area where they can sensibly be found. As for any increase in own resources, that remains conditional on the fulfilment of the conditions clearly set out in the Stuttgart mandate.
It would be interesting to know exactly where the Labour party stands on such matters. Its representatives seem to have argued during the election that they would be prepared to accept the case for own resources, but they have failed to clarify the conditions upon which they would do it.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no clear case has been made to the House for any increase in own resources? Does he further agree that the question of our refund should not be linked in any way to the question of increased own resources, as we are entitled to the former anyway?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already explained to the House, the question of our 1983 refund is something on which agreement was reached at Stuttgart and in respect of which we expect payment to be made during the current year. We shall not agree to any increase in own resources unless we are satisfied that we have achieved the mechanism to control Community spending and an equitable budget settlement. If those conditions are fulfilled—we have repeated them many times—we shall be ready to consider an increase to meet the realistic costs of enlargement by the end of the decade, a modest growth in structural funds, limited growth in the cost of new policies and, of course, budget reliefs for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there appears to be a substantial difference between the briefing that he gave to the British press, which appeared in at least two newspapers yesterday, and his account to the House today? His briefing was rather more interesting than his account to the House, in which he put forward several British political initiatives, some of which seem to be very sensible.
What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude in those British proposals to rolling back the use of the veto? That should be done, especially with a Community of 12 members. As he told us this afternoon, a discussion was held on relations with the Parliament, but agreement was not reached, because of Danish opposition. That will happen increasingly in the case of one country or another, on issue after issue. There will not be the change in the Community that is so desirable in British and general European interests.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I made some reference in my remarks to the press yesterday to the ideas for the future development of the Community that were recently offered to our European partners by the Prime Minister, in a paper that is intended as a contribution to discussion at Fontainebleau.
Our position on the veto is unchanged. We make it plain that the provisions for majority voting set out in the treaty should be respected and acted upon, that the provisions of the Luxembourg compromise that are attached to it, whereby a country is entitled to reserve its position in respect of vital national interests, should also

be observed but that the Luxembourg compromise should not be abused. That position was clearly stated in our manifesto and has been stated many times in the House. Only on that basis will the Community be able to make the progress that the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend describe to us the degree to which he was able to negotiate the budgetary discipline that he seeks to apply to the European budget as a precondition for the increase in own resources?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The budgetary discipline text was provisionally adopted at the European Council meeting in Brussels. Since then, the details for its implementation are being worked out by the Finance Ministers, to whom it has been remitted. I stressed yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council that the text agreed at the March European Council requires Ministers to adopt measures that will guarantee effective application of the principles agreed by the Heads of Government. The Finance Ministers are applying themselves to that task.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if the Government agree some 40 per cent. increase in our VAT payments to the Community under own resources, the two mechanisms of which he has spoken will be considered to be satisfactory? Will the formulae and texts of those two mechanisms be included in the treaty, which will effectively be placed before the House for approval?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The text that is likely to be presented to the House will concentrate on an increase in own resources, if such is recommended, and on the budgetary mechanism for the fairness of the budget system that will be incorporated in the own resources decision. That text is not likely to contain the conclusions that are necessary to fulfil the commitment to secure effective budgetary discipline. Finance Ministers are now engaged on drawing up that text.

Sir David Price: When will the Council of Ministers make progress on the numerous non-tariff obstacles to trade? When will they make a reality of the articles in the Treaty of Rome appertaining to a common market in service industries? For example, when will the French open their coast to British coastal shipping, and when will the Germans allow British insurance companies to work and seek insurance policies in Germany? Are those not major actions against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of making progress, both in the establishment of a common market in services and in the removal of unnecessary non-tariff barriers to the Common Market in goods. Those are matters to which the Brussels European Council text draws attention, specifically identifying insurance services as one of the areas in which we need to make progress. I remind my hon. Friend that the package of 15 directives that was before the Council yesterday—subject to the removal of technical objections to about three of them, the directives are likely to be adopted—covers the establishment of common technical standards for industrial products affecting construction equipment, lifting and mechanical handling equipment, gas appliances, pressure vessels, lawnmowers and electro-medical equipment. In some of


those areas, notably construction equipment and electromedical equipment, British exporters will secure real trading advantages from those directives, which are close to bring adopted as a result of yesterday's decisions.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Did the Foreign Secretary mean to imply, in his press briefings at any rate, that all that remains to be settled is the mechanism for our budget rebate? Will he make it clear how far he thinks we have got with the fundamental changes that he laid down as preconditions for any increase in our VAT contribution? Is it just coincidence that all this talk of compromise and all these preparations for what looks suspiciously like a sell-out have come within just a few days of having got the European election safely, or perhaps not so safely, out of the way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of any sellout or change of posture. Agreement on the propositions established at Stuttgart, including satisfactory mechanisms for budgetary discipline and a satisfactory conclusion of the budget problem, is a necessary condition for a recommendation for any increase in own resources. The hon. Gentleman should reflect, before talking about the reaction to the election, that in fact it showed that the Government are still preferred to the Labour party by the voters of Britain. The expectations of the Labour party are now so low that anything short of total disaster is claimed as a victory. The results on Sunday gave the Labour party the lowest percentage of the vote in any general election since 1931, with the single exception of 1983. That is a sorry yardstick for the Labour party.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if we agreed to reduce our rebate request to £675 million, allied to an increase in own resources, Britain would face an horrendous and growing annual contribution to the EEC? What estimate has my right hon. and learned Friend made of that? Will he confirm that it is still the Government's basic minimum demand that there should be a permanent budget settlement, not just one for a period of years? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that as long as the Common Market is spending £100 million a week on dumping or destroying food, it is nonsense to talk about budget discipline?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position remains exactly as it has always been, in that any variation in the own resources decision has to be linked to the arrival at a satisfactory conclusion on the fairness of the budget system. If we can achieve a fair budget decision, it will be incorporated in the own resources decision.
With regard to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, the need to reduce the substantial Community expenditure is the reason why this country, together with the other Community countries, has been facing tough and difficult decisions on farm policy. It is only by continuing to apply the need for discipline in the common agricultural policy that we shall achieve success along the lines that my hon. Friend wants. However, he should not deceive himself into thinking that that is an easy task or that it can be easily achieved without grave discomfort and difficulty for our farming industry.

Mr. John David Taylor: What are the general headings of the further savings which the Foreign Secretary personally recommended to avoid an overrun of the 1984 budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Each of the committees concerned with programmes of the Community, including the Agriculture Committee and the Finance Committee, has been instructed to examine further ways of achieving those savings. In addition, proposals have been put forward by some member states, all of which are being re-examined.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that market discipline will be improved by dealing with overspending on agricultural surpluses and by dismantling non-tariff barriers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred? Do other member states recognise that progress will lead to greater advantages than will the stalling of negotiations about the budget rebate and resources?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for improved market performance both by agricultural price regimes and by the removal of non-tariff barriers. There is a recognition, though not as strong as I would wish it to be, of the important part that can be played in that direction and of the need to make progress and resolve the budgetary dispute. The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred, is helpful when it says that it would undoubtedly assist our reaching a final settlement on the budget if other Governments in the Community recognised the extent of the concessions made by the British Government and our commitment to the Community.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the legal position is of the so-called summits? The decisions at Stuttgart were not carried out because summits have no status under the Treaty of Rome. What is the point of going to Fontainbleau when the decisions made at the Stuttgart meeting have not yet been carried out?
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government appear to be a sick joke by paying our full gross contribution for this year when they have not received half of our relief from last year? When will they bring in legislation to intercept these excess payments, which we are making unnecessarily to the European Community? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, there is no basis for an increase in VAT payments, and that that view has the widest possible support in the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept that that is the right conclusion. I mentioned some of the factors that would justify a possible recommendations for an increase in own resources, but only when the conditions that I have described were fulfilled. We shall seek to arrive at a final agreement on those conditions at Fontainbleau?

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the linked ideas, about which he spoke in his original statement, may form the basis of an acceptable compromise at Fontainebleau? Is he further aware that it would be easier to take the Labour party seriously if it were not for the fact that during a Harris poll on Euro polling day, 14 June, only 16 per


cent. of those who supported the Labour party said that they did so because they believed in Labour's European policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not doubt that it was difficult for those who voted for the Labour party to assert that they believed in its policy, because it is obscure.

Mr. Russell Johnston: As the Foreign Affairs Council took place after the European elections and discussed conciliation procedures, did it also discuss the elections? The Foreign Secretary is thought to be a fair-minded man. Does he agree that a system which allows 20 per cent. of the population to vote for a party and yet obtain no representation is completely indefensible? Does he agree also that if we had proportional representation, such as that which operates in Ulster and the rest of the European Community, the alliance would have had 15 or more representatives? Will he assure me that the Government will not allow such an injustice to happen again and that he will raise the matter at the next Council meeting?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's views on this matter are well known. He must accept that there is a wide range of electoral systems in the Community. I hope that if he looks at the results he will recognise that in this election, as in previous elections, the use of proportional representation in other member states has not inevitably provided a boost to democratic values. The voters in the European Community have sensibly decided to sustain a Centre-Right majority in the European Parliament, supported by a majority in the British Government.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: How is it possible to make a substantial reduction in expenditure in the European Community this year when two-thirds of the expenditure goes on the common agricultural policy, when price levels have already been agreed and as the volume of production and world prices are not controlled?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It will be difficult to achieve the many savings that are necessary, but I wish that my hon. Friend, who frequently makes his views known on this matter, would understand and accept the solid practical difficulties of securing the changes that are necessary for an agricultural regime which has done great good for the farming industry throughout the Community but which is having to face uncomfortable decisions. He would do better to commend the decisions which the Government had the courage to take and help to commend them to the country.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the presence at the meeting of the Minister for Overseas Development, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House precisely what discussions took place about overseas aid?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yesterday there was a discussion of the basis on which the Community would approach the meeting on 28 and 29 June with the representatives of the ACP countries. The main elements of the Community's position have been put in place. It should be recognised that the Lomé trade regime is a generous one and that about 98 per cent. of ACP products enter the Community free from tariffs and any quantitative restriction. The final decisions must be taken at the end of the negotiating process.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his report exhibits a high degree of flexibility in the negotiations in which he has taken part, on which he deserves congratulations? Does he accept also that if the Fontainebleau summit should no be a success, it would not be a tragedy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I recognise that that thought is one of the many interesting ones to emerge from the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, over which my hon. Friend presides. He was right to make that point in the report. It is right that we should strive to reach a conclusion of the Stuttgart mandate, if that can be done on terms which can be commended.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Foreign Secretary satisfy my curiosity about what he described as a ministerial conference with the Spanish Foreign Minister at the margins of the Council? Was it a chat over a cup of tea or a casual meeting in the washroom? What did the Foreign Secretary say to the Spanish Foreign Minister when he met him in those conditions? Did they discuss the joint statement of King Juan Carlos and President Alfonsin about the islands? Did he, for example, add that even Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne—no political friend of ours—now suggests that the Spanish Foreign Minister should negotiate? Did he raise the question of the rock — not the Rock of Gibraltar, but the thousands of tonnes of rocks that we are carrying from the northern to the southern hemisphere because the rock in the Falkland Islands is not good enough for the Margaret Thatcher international airport?

Sir Georffrey Howe: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the meeting was not as he described it. It was a formal meeting between representatives of the Council of Ministers and the Spanish Government concerned with the negotiations for the accession of Spain to the Community. It would not have been appropriate to raise the matters which he seems to be able to raise on every possible occasion, right or wrong.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: Did my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to convey to his Common Market colleagues the fact that a considerable body of opinion in Britain believe that the British Government would be entirely justified in withholding our contributions to the EC budget in the event that the agreed refund due to us for last year continues to be denied to us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On several occasions our partners in the Community have been left in no doubt about the importance attached by the House and people outside it to the points made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Foreiign Secretary realise that the British people will not believe that this two-faced Government can provide money for the Common Market one day and a plan for the Community another day —they are to find another £670 million, which is equivalent to £2 million a day, for all the gravy trains—yet not set up a "Plan for Coal"? They will not even adhere to the last one——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the point.

Mr. Skinner: I am sticking to the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the "Plan for Coal".

Mr. Skinner: What I am trying to suggest to the Foreign Secretary and to his adherents in the Cabinet is that the Government are two-faced, because they are prepared to prop up the Common Market by £2 million a day extra——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be asking a question about the summit meeting.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. They are prepared to provide £2 million a day extra to pay for the gravy trains, to prop up the Mafia and to pay for uneconomic farming, but at the same time they are allowing the British mining industry to collapse. In simple English, that is hypocrisy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If that represents even a fraction of the truth, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that in the elections last week the Conservative party secured 48 out of the 78 mainland seats and had a substantial majority in the popular vote, which represents a completely different judgment by real people from that which the hon. Gentleman expresses?

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the achievement of budgetary discipline points logically towards a containment of expenditure rather than to an increase of expenditure which an increase in own resources would undoubtedly carry with it? Does he also agree that there is an apparent inconsistency between the disciplined approach to public expenditure at home, of which he is such a powerful advocate, and the relatively relaxed approach which he seems to be willing to contemplate in Europe? Does he agree that an increase in own resources raises major questions which should be fully debated in the House before the Government make any commitment in Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already explained to the House the procedure that will be adopted for consideration

by the House of any possible increase in own resources. I entirely agree about the pervasive importance of a consistent attitude towards public expenditure. It is for that reason that we have pressed so hard, and will continue to press hard, for texts to be adopted on budgetary discipline which will guarantee the fulfilment of the agreements made at the Brussels summit on 20 March. My hon. Friend should take some comfort from the fact that several of our Community partners are now seeking to achieve exactly the same conclusion. Of course, it is important to achieve that result.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I remove the obscurity in the Foreign Secretary's mind about the Opposition's view on own resources? We believe that no case has been made for an increase in own resources, and no case could be made on the basis of the proposals under discussion.
If one of the Foreign Secretary's conditions is that agricultural expenditure must be brought under effective control, may I tempt him to comment on the draft budget for next year, which was published earlier this month and which shows that the proportion of the budget spent on agriculture will increase next year? Does that not demonstrate that expenditure on agriculture, far from being under effective control, is accelerating out of control? In those circumstances, many hon. Members, not only Opposition Members, will not agree that we should pay even more to fund even larger surpluses.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Community budget but the Commission's proposals for a budget. The preliminary draft budget should be revised to comply with the obligation to respect the ceiling of own resources.
There remains intense mystification about the Labour party's policy. It has been changed at each election during the last 15 years. Perhaps now, instead of being half in favour of staying in the Community, it is half in favour of getting out.

16-plus Examinations

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the action which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are taking to reform the current system of public examinations at 16-plus. Our objectives are to improve the examination courses and to raise the standard of performance of all candidates. Four measures are needed to this end.
First, the 20 examinations boards need to come together in five groups—four in England and one in Wales. This will reduce the excessive number of examining bodies, syllabuses and subject titles, which are now a source of confusion. Secondly, all syllabuses need to be governed by national criteria now in preparation to improve their coverage and content, and to ensure that all courses achieve a proper balance between acquiring knowledge and acquiring skills and understanding, and between theoretical and practical work.
Thirdly, there is a need for differentiated papers or questions in every subject, so that each subject may be taught and examined in a way that reflects the widely differing abilities of candidates more effectively. Fourthly examination grades should have a clearer meaning and pupils and teachers need clearer goals. We accordingly need grade-related criteria which will specify the knowledge, understanding and skills expected for the award of particular grades.
We have decided that this programme will be implemented most quickly and effectively through a single system of examinations, to be known as the General Certificate of Secondary Education. Such a system has been recommended to us by the Secondary Examinations Council and the great majority of organisations within the education service and outside it. We are therefore today inviting the examinations boards to confirm their support for national criteria which will incorporate both a requirement for differentiated papers or questions for each subject and grade-related criteria as these come to be developed. Given that confirmation, the new system will be introduced for courses beginning in the autumn of 1986 with the first awards in the summer of 1988. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a copy of my letter to the boards: copies are also available in the Vote Office.
The GCSE will be a system of examinations, not a single examination. It will have the four features essential for higher standards—fewer examining groups, national criteria, differentiated papers or questions, and grade-related criteria. The certificates will be awarded by each examining group, with a seven-point scale of grades denoted by the letters A to G. Candidates who do not demonstrate the required minimum level of performance will fail. Grades A to C will embody standards at least as high as the corresponding O-level grades A to C now do. They will be clearly distinguished from grades D to G in that, within the examining groups, sole responsibility for setting and maintaining their standards will rest with the GCE boards, which will be required to give specific assurances to my right hon. Friend and myself about the standard of these grades. When one of these grades, A to C, is awarded, this will be shown distinctively on the

certificate. The examinations will be supervised by the Secondary Examinations Council, reporting as necessary to my right hon. Friend and myself.
We propose an additional step to encourage the ablest pupils to pursue broad and balanced courses in the fourth and fifth years of secondary education. We shall invite the Secondary Examinations Council and the examinations boards to co-operate in the introduction of distinction certificates for candidates achieving good grades in a broad range of key subjects.
The new system of examinations will build on the strengths of O-levels and will do more than O-levels to stretch the ablest pupils; it will do more than CSE to motivate other pupils. It will more effectively promote worthwhile knowledge, understanding and skills. It will grade candidates by their performance better than now, on the basis of what they themselves know and can do and without regard to the performance of others. It will be clearer to candidates, their parents and employers than is the present system, and it will be more cost-effective. A single system with the features and safeguards on which the Government insist will be a powerful instrument for raising standards of performance at every level of ability.

Mr. Giles Radice: After five years of Conservative Government deliberation—most would say procrastination—may I congratulate the Secretary of State on coming to a decision? After yesterday's Question Time, when I criticised the Secretary of State for what I believed to be his incompetent handling of the teachers' dispute, may I today welcome the fact that he has at last recognised that having two systems of 16-plus examinations is divisive and wasteful, and come out in favour of a single system of examinations with a single grading system — a change that is supported by most informed opinion including teachers, examination bodies and employers alike?
However, can he explain why he is retaining the old GCE boards when he is abolishing the O-level examination? I hope he is not trying to retain the O-level examination under another name. In this connection, what is the purpose of having a distinction certificate? Is it the Secretary of State's sop to the Tory Right, bringing back "matric" through the back door? In which subjects does the Secretary of State believe there should be differentiated papers?
The old CSE and O-level examinations were designed to cover 60 per cent. of the relevant age group. What proportion will the new examination system cover?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: That depends on how they perform.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman is not Secretary of State yet.
Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that other types of assessment, particularly profiling, continuous assessment and the modular approach in the fifth and sixth years recommended by Hargreaves will be encouraged under the new system?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for the general welcome given by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the decision has been improved by the delay in the sense that we now have wide acceptance of grade-related criteria and of differentiated examination assessment — the basic imperatives if we are to improve standards throughout the ability range, which is what we all want.
We are retaining the GCE boards as important components of the standard-setting mechanism. Distinction certificates are proposed by the Government to meet what is I would have thought the wish of all Members, the encouragement of excellence. The proportion of the population for whom the new examination system is proposed is 100 per cent. The proportion of people who will achieve graded results within it depends, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) perspicuously said, on how they perform.
There will be a parallel initiative by the Government involving records of achievement which, in answer to the last point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), will be brought into effect as soon as practicable after pilot schemes.

Mr. David Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that included in the general welcome for his proposal there will be particular satisfaction about the greater importance of tests of practical ability which, coupled with the new merged systems of examination, will surely provide a much better guide to and assessment of pupils' ability? Can he say a little more about the development of pupil profiles which, added to the new merged systems of examinations, will give a good guide to the level of a pupil's learning and development?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It seems to us outmoded that, for instance, the marks for oral competence in a foreign language should be such a small proportion of the total marks. We shall encourage the oral use of foreign languages by giving higher marks for it. As for records of achievement, as I told the hon. Member for Durham, North, they will go through a stage of pilot schemes prior to, I hope, universal introduction.

Mr. Clement Freud: May I give a rather warmer welcome to the Secretary of State's proposals than came from the Labour Front Bench? Will the Secretary of State accept that the success or failure of the scheme will depend on the co-operation of the teachers? Will he do his best to improve the current strained relationship between his Department and the teachers' union?
On the subject of examinations reflecting the widely differing abilities of candidates, will he confirm that if a pupil chooses to take a question which is in the D-G range and that pupil excels in his answer he too will be eligible for a distinction?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. Certainly all effectiveness in education depends upon the co-operation of the teachers. The programme that we are proposing will involve a special in-service training provision for some teachers.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, if a candidate reaches high standards in the more difficult questions, even though that candidate has prepared himself or herself for the easier choices, he or she will be eligible for the higher grades. If the candidate earns enough higher grades, he or she will become eligible for the distinction certificate.

Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that outside the House and outside the

somewhat hermetic world of the educational establishment, only one question will be asked as a result of the statement, and that is whether the Government are merging up or merging down. I notice that in his statement my right hon. Friend referred to the introduction of grade-related criteria as and when these are developed. Does that mean that the change in the examination system will be introduced before grade-related criteria are established?

Sir Keith Joseph: To answer my hon. Friend's last question first, I have said when the new system will be introduced. The courses will start in 1986 and the first examinations will be in 1988. At that time grade-related criteria will be in the second half of their pilot scheme stage. As a result of the lessons learnt during the pilot stage we shall hope to go national towards the end of the decade.
On my hon. Friend's first and penetrating point, the Government are merging up. If I were asked to summarise that briefly, I would say that the system we propose will be tougher but clearer and fairer; that it will be more intelligible to users; that it will be better than O-levels for those who have taken O-levels; and better than CSE for those who have taken CSE; that it will stretch the able more; and that it will stretch the average more. We are certainly merging up.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State consider that he will need not only the co-operation but the professionalism of teachers? Therefore, should not the Government gradually move the salary scale over several years towards that suggested by Houghton some time ago? Is there not a need to encourage pupils to stay at school, particularly working-class children? Therefore, will he consider an education grant equal to that of the youth training scheme to encourage people to stay on after 16?

Sir Keith Joseph: I must mildly say that teachers are not going a long way to demonstrate professionalism by their present behaviour.
I have explained to the House many times that there is no evidence that significant numbers of pupils are failing to stay on at school for lack of the sort of payment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Moreover, such a payment would involve large sums of money, most of which would go in deadweight to pay young people who would stay on at school anyway, in their own interests.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in the previous Parliament took the view that a substantial number of pupils taking GCE O-level, and CSE for that matter, were underachieving and achieving only two, three or even fewer passes, whereas they were capable of achieving five, six or more, and that an incentive such as a distinction certificate or a merit certificate was desirable? That was the view of all members, including Christopher Price and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). It is odd to hear the Opposition Front Bench spokesman denigrating the certificate. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the distinction certificate that he has mentioned will not prejudice the award of single-subject pass certificates to pupils who pass only single subjects but that it is a bonus to those who do extra well and an incentive for more children to do so?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad to acknowledge that the Government are following the unanimous advice of the


Select Committee in its proposal to introduce distinction certificates. I confirm my hon. Friend's presumption in the last part of his question.

Mr. Mark Fisher: May I offer a warm general welcome to the Secretary of State's rather late conversion to what we have been saying for a number of years—that there should be one examination system? Will he assure the House that the Department will provide the necessary money for the transfer to the new system — money that will be required for in-service teacher training, curriculum conferences, amalgamating the boards, and moderating the new examinations? Does he realise that, if he cannot give a categoric assurance that he will back up the new proposal with money, teachers, pupils and parents in Britain will view them as they soon learnt to view his Sheffield speech—as well intentioned but ineffective?

Sir Keith Joseph: Once again, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks but I must rebut his use of the word "conversion". The background to the Government's decision has three ingredients which owe nothing whatever to the Labour party—grade-related criteria, differentiation, and distinction certificates. The decision to merge into one single system is not in itself any sort of guarantee of improved standards. It is merely a relatively suitable framework within which the Government's predominating desire to see the improvement of standards at all levels of ability, particularly by way of grade-related criteria and differentiation, can be achieved. I acknowledge that there will be a need for resources for, for instance, in-service training. For his part, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the decision will lead to some savings in that fewer young people will be entered for two examinations.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will be greatly relieved that he has announced today not a single examination but a single system of examinations, which will enable pupils to take the examinations at different stages in their career depending on their ability? Is not that change long overdue, bearing in mind that previously there were over 20,000 different syllabuses, several hundred different subjects and more than 20 examination boards?

Sir Keith Joseph: I welcome every word of my hon. Friend. It is almost incredible that there are at the moment over 19,000 different syllabuses. We hope that they will be sharply reduced when the new system is introduced.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that those million young people under 25 years of age who are on the scrap heap that has largely been created by the Government, which is known as the dole queue, will not give his proposals a warm welcome? Nor will he get a warm welcome from me. The proposal should be set against a background of 6,300 young miners, some with O-levels and some with A-levels who obtained jobs in the mining industry in 1979, and fewer than 1,800, some with O-levels and some with A-levels, who got jobs in the mining industry in 1983–84. Does he not realise that he can play around with the structures and the cosmetics, he can meddle with the arrangements in schools, but the real problem is, first, that the education service wants more money, secondly, teachers should be paid properly, and, thirdly, those young people who need motivation to pass

examinations must have a job opportunity at the end? Until the Minister or the Government explain when those people will get jobs they will just laugh in the Minister's face.

Sir Keith Joseph: It is a sad fact that the long queues of unemployed owe much to the ignorance and obstructiveness of the attitude of the hon. Gentleman and that small minority which thinks like him.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is not one of the most welcome aspects of the statement made by my right hon. Friend today in introducing a single system of examination based on grade-related criteria the fact that it will help to clear the minds of employers about the standards that young people—potential employees—will be able to offer when seeking work? Might that not also help to motivate the young people?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Users will know what any particular grade that has been won means in terms of the skill, understanding and knowledge of the successful candidate — the applicant for a job.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy programme in front of us. I shall allow questions to continue until a quarter to five.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, in particular the tidying-up of the examination boards and of the many syllabuses, as well as the introduction of the distinction grade, which will be an enormous help. Nevertheless, may I pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden)? Will my right hon. Friend explain how well he believes he will be able to put across the message contained in his proposals to the average parent and employer in Britain, bearing in mind the length of time that it took the average parent and employer to understand what happened the last time the examination system was changed?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has raised a fairly formidable problem. I have no doubt that if parents knew the details of the proposals they would approve. We shall provide a much clearer picture for parents, pupils and teachers of what is required to get different grades in different subjects. There will be a problem in communicating that.
Motivation—I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who cross-questioned me so ferociously and rhetorically just now—is a key factor. The more that we can show candidates that the standards expected to achieve a grade are attainable by them, the more pupils and teachers will gird themselves in a way that they are not now motivated to do to try to get the grades concerned. They will recognise that users will appreciate the value of those grades. I recognise the rather big task of conveying that truth to the public, but I believe that we can do it.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since this issue has taxed every Secretary of State since Mrs. Shirley Williams, he ought to be the toast of the education world and, indeed, should have been the toast of the Labour party if more than two Back Benchers had even bothered to take an interest in the issue?
When he mentions national criteria so often, is he suggesting that the five new merged boards will be required to set syllabuses within the framework of a national common syllabus? He has emphasised that the boards operating the top three grades will have a formal obligation to him to ensure that grades do not slip. Is there any such obligation on, or arrangement with, the boards operating the lower grades to ensure that their grades do not slip?

Sir Keith Joseph: The answer is yes. I am slightly flurried at the suggestion that I might be the toast of anybody, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The national criteria are of two sorts. There are subject-specific criteria, which lay down a framework for the assessment of work in each subject, and there are general national criteria, which set a framework as between, say, practical work and theoretical work for all the subjects. These national criteria will provide the framework within which the grade-related criteria will fit. The grade-related criteria are intended to raise standards at all levels of ability in all subjects.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I wish to join the general welcome that has been given to my right hon. Friend's statement because I believe that it will end the confusion that presently exists between the GCE and CSE examinations. However, I should like to pursue one aspect of the various questions that have been raised. Will it be possible to draw a distinction between an excellent performance at a lower level of attainment and a rather indifferent performance by someone who has striven for a high level of attainment? Employers might wish to be able to distinguish between these two categories as well as higher educational establishments.

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that I may have given—and I apologise to the House—an inaccurate reply to an earlier question on a related subject. If a candidate sets himself or herself to the less demanding choice of papers, that candidate will not be able to achieve a higher grade award simply by doing excellently. The teacher and the candidate will have forgone the chance to earn a higher grade by the more timid choice that they have made. On the other hand, if anybody goes for a higher grade and fails to achieve it, he or she may qualify for a lower grade. To the extent that I misinformed the House earlier, I apologise.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that congratulations and celebrations may be premature and, although I wish him well in what he is seeking to do, may I ask him to reflect on the fact that there is a real possibility that there could be new confusion? This could become "Joseph's amazing technicolour examination", if he is not careful. If he is to achieve his laudable desire of levelling, or merging, up, it is essential that he accepts the establishment of a series of conferences, seminars and such-like throughout the country, explaining precisely to parents and employers what he has in mind.

Sir Keith Joseph: I accept the last part of my hon. Friend's comments. As to the first part, I am surprised that those concerned tell me that we shall be able to introduce

the new courses two years from now. It is rather sooner than I had expected when I proposed the policy in general at Sheffield earlier this year.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him to assure the House that in speaking of the 16-plus examinations he does not anticipate a rigid restriction on under-age candidates? Secondly, can he assure the House that, despite the reduction in the number of examination boards, he will ensure that there remains a wide choice in the subject matter presented to the pupils?

Sir Keith Joseph: The answer to both questions is yes. I can reassure my hon. Friend on both points.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I join in the general welcome for the proposals but agree with my hon. Friends who have stated that there may be a problem of communication in getting across the message of the proposals to parents, employers and, indeed, to children. I appeal to the Secretary of State and his colleagues, where possible, to avoid terms like differentiated examination assessment or grade-related criteria. These terms may mean a great deal to those of us who, when we have time, read The Times Educational Supplement, but I am not sure whether they come across to people in the country and, indeed, to many practising teachers in the classroom.

Sir Keith Joseph: The answer is yes, and I invite my hon. Friend to suggest synonyms, for which I shall be grateful. I can assure the House that differentiation means that there will be a vast difference between a grade A and a grade G.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), concerned as he is about jobs, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick in condemning the proposals? The reduction in the number of examination boards and the establishment of national criteria will have not only educational but economic value. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that that will tend to impart a degree of flexibility into the economy, particularly in the labour market and with regard to job prospects, in that families with children of school age will be the more ready to move to work in other parts of the country, and the qualifications of school leavers will have a wider acceptability?

Sir Keith Joseph: I would agree even more with my hon. Friend if I could be sure that the teachers themselves understood the importance of adaptability if we are to have an effective trading base to keep our present standards, let alone to improve our general standards.

Mr. Radice: As hon. Members were clearly not listening fully, may I repeat the welcome from the Labour Benches for the Secretary of State's decision, however delayed, to establish a single system of 16-plus examinations? My suspicion that the retention of the GCE boards was a specific gesture to the Conservative Right wing has, I am afraid, been confirmed by what the Secretary of State said. We are also unhappy about the distinction certificates, and we will want to probe those further. It would help with the raising of standards if the Secretary of State took the same sensible attitude towards the here and now issue of teachers' pay and industrial relations as he does to the long-term planning of the education system.

Sir Keith Joseph: Once again, I have to rebut the suggestion that merely going to arbitration will solve a deep seated problem. The problem is one of financial resources, and the hon. Gentleman is at one with his party in always neglecting the realities of finances.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Labour Benches have been almost empty throughout the questions on the statement, and the Liberal spokesman disappeared after it was made.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not remotely a matter for me.

Following is the letter:

REFORM OF 16+ EXAMINATIONS

I announced in the House of Commons this afternoon that the Secretary of State for Wales and I had decided that, on certain important conditions which I mention below, a single system of examinations at 16+, based on national criteria, should be introduced as soon as is practicable. The new system is to take the place of the existing O level, CSE and joint 16+ examinations in England and Wales and will be known as the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).

In my statement to Parliament, a copy of which is enclosed, I said that the Government's main objectives in reforming 16+ examinations are to improve examination courses and to raise the standard of performance of all candidates. We believe that these objectives will most effectively be implemented in the context of a new system of GCSE examinations incorporating the features discussed below. The new system will be as set out in the Government's policy statement of November 1982, "Examinations at 16-Plus", with certain significant additions and modifications. The main features will be:
(i) Examining groups. The GCSE would be administered by 5 groups of GCSE and CSE Boards—4 in England and one in Wales—as set out in paragraphs 9 to 12 and Annex A of the 1982 policy statement. In relation to the GCSE, no Board should act independently of the group to which it belongs.
(ii) National criteria. All syllabuses and the procedures for assessment and grading will be based on the national criteria — both the subject-specific criteria wherever applicable and also the general criteria—which are to be approved by the holder of my office and the Secretary of State for Wales.
(iii) Differentiation of assessment. The Secretary of State for Wales and I consider it essential that the national criteria should make the necessary provision for proper discrimination between candidates so that candidates across the ability range are given opportunities to show what they know and can do. Accordingly, the criteria will need to be explicit on the means by which such differentiation is to be secured, by requiring either differentiated papers or differentiation within papers in examinations for all subjects. The syllabuses also will need to specify how this differentiation is to be achieved. We note that requirements on these lines are consistent with the Joint Council's recent statement that some form of differentiation will be needed in every subject.
(iv) Grade-related criteria. We likewise consider it essential that the national criteria, and syllabuses based upon them, should as soon as possible embody grade-related criteria. The Secondary Examinations Council has accepted the task of preparing drafts of these grade-related criteria and the associated assessment systems, in consultation with the Boards, for approval by the holder of my office and the Secretary of State for Wales.
(v) Target group. The general criteria will need to make clear that the standards required of successful candidates in GCSE examinations should be no less exacting than those required in the existing 16+ examinations which, taken together, were originally designed for the upper 60% of the ability range. The grading system for the GCSE should be such as to ensure that candidates, whatever their ability relative to other candidates, only obtain a grade if, and only if, they reach the standard required for the award of that grade as specifically defined in the grade-related criteria as they are developed.

(vi) Certification and grading. Certificates will be awarded in a common form by each of the 5 examining groups. The present O level and CSE grades are to be replaced by a single, 7-point scale of grades. We propose that the new grades should be denoted by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F and G. The certificates will need to give prominence to the grades awarded. The GCE Boards will have responsibility within the examining groups for maintaining the standards of grades A to C; the CSE Boards will have a corresponding responsibility with regard to grades D to G. In the transitional period, when grade-related criteria are available only for some subjects, the GCSE grades will be linked to O level grades A to C and CSE grades 2 to 5. Where grade-related criteria are in operation, no direct comparisons with earlier grades will be possible because the significance attached to the attainment of particular grades will be based on a different approach to assessment.
(vii) Monitoring by Secondary Examinations Council. The SEC will be responsible for monitoring all GCSE syllabuses, assessment and grading procedures, together with all other examination courses offered to pupils during the years of compulsory schooling. It will be for the examining groups and the SEC to ensure that syllabuses, and procedures for assessment and grading, comply with the national criteria including, in due course, grade-related criteria, and to ensure comparability of standards between groups. The SEC will also be responsible, in consultation with the examining groups, for advising the holder of my office and the Secretary of State for Wales on the need for development of and changes in the national criteria, including the grade related criteria.

As the Joint Council will be aware from earlier correspondence and discussion, the Secretary of State for Wales and I attach great importance to the points listed above: particularly to the inclusion in the national criteria of a requirement for differentiated assessment between or within papers in every subject and grade-related criteria as these come to be developed. We now invite the Boards to confirm their support for national criteria incorporating the elements described above.

We wish also to explore with the SEC and the examining groups the possibility of introducing special GCSE Distinction Certificates for candidates who have achieved a specified number of higher grades in a defined range of subjects. These would be designed so as to encourage the ablest candidates in particular to pursue a suitably broad curriculum in the 4th and 5th years of secondary education. We shall bring forward proposals for discussion with the SEC, the Boards and others concerned in the education service and outside it.

Given the Boards' support as indicated above, we propose that the new GCSE examinations should be introduced for courses beginning in Autumn 1986, with the first examinations following in summer 1988. Since all GCSE courses and examinations will be based on the national criteria it will be essential to complete as soon as practicable the final stages of preparing these criteria in a form which the Secretary of State far Wales and I can approve. We ask the Joint Council and the SEC to collaborate accordingly over these last stages so that final revisions are available before or by Christmas 1984. The Secondary Examinations Council intend to complete, that final revisions are available before or by Christmas 1984. The Secondary Examinations Council intend to complete, in consultation with the Boards, the first stage of work on grade-related criteria in 10 subjects by July/August 1985.

The detailed timetable would be as follows:


July/August 1984
Secretary of State for Wales and I comment on the outstanding draft subject-specific criteria.


September 1984
Grade-related criteria working parties begin substantive work on the first 10 subjects.


December 1984
Submission of revised versions of national criteria for approval by the Secretaries of State.






January 1985
National criteria published by the Secretaries of State.


July/August 1985
SEC publishes proposals for grade-related criteria and associated assessment systems for first 10 subjects.


May 1986
Latest date for publication by examining groups of syllabuses based on national criteria, embodying, subject to progress made, grade-related criteria for the first subjects. (Grade-related criteria on other subjects introduced as soon as ready.)


Autumn 1986
First GCSE courses, based on national criteria, begin.


May/June and Winter 1987
Final O level, CSE and joint 16+ examinations.


May/June 1988
First GCSE examinations.

We hope that it may be possible to introduce grade-related criteria for the first subjects simultaneously with the GCSE examination: a final decision on this matter will depend on progress made.

The Secretary of State for Wales and I are aware that the introduction of the new system will involve a great deal of work by the Examinations Boards and the SEC, in addition to all the invaluable work that has been undertaken already. We would wish this work to proceed as quickly as possible; and we ask the examining groups and the SEC to keep in close touch with the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office, whose officials stand ready to offer assistance as may be required. Since all GSCE courses and examinations will be conducted by the examining groups, the Secretary of State for Wales and I now ask the Boards to let us know as soon as possible the arrangements which have been made for the constitution and internal structure of each group as requested in paragraph 12 of the 1982 policy statement. It would be helpful if these arrangements could be made final as soon as practicable, and meanwhile if the groups could arrange to act together on all matters relating to the GCSE from September this year.

Copies of this letter are being sent to the Chairman of the Secondary Examinations Council, the Chairmen of all GCE and CSE Boards, and the Chairmen of the Education Committees of the local authority associations. The letter will also be published by circulation in Hansard.

Registrations and Accountability of Charities

Mr. Timothy Yeo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all charities to be registered; to make regular annual returns (including independently audited financial accounts) available for public inspection, and to grant access to annual general meetings to all financial supporters.
The Bill would require all charities to be registered, to make regular annual returns, including independently audited financial accounts, available for public inspection and to grant access to annual general meetings to all financial supporters.
There can be few people in the country who have not had some contact with charities in one form or another, whether as a voluntary worker, a financial supporter making a donation or as a direct or indirect recipient of the service of a charity. However, the popular perception of charities remains focused on a few well-known organisations such as Dr. Barnardo's and Oxfam, or, at the other end of the scale, local charitable activities such as — [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) explained that he would have to leave before I had finished presenting the Bill to the House. As I said, at the other end of the scale there are local charitable activities such as the repair of a church roof.
Four essential characteristics reflect the state of charitable activity today. First, there is the size. Collectively, charities are very much larger than most members of the public realise. In 1980, the last year for which any accurate estimate is available, total charitable income from all sources amounted to more than £5 billion, which was more than 2 per cent. of the gross national product for that year. It also represented more than half the total defence budget and more than half the total EEC budget at the time. Within that very large collective total there is an increasing number of large organisations, 15 of which have an annual income in excess of f 10 million. The organisation for which I was responsible before I became a Member of Parliament, the Spastics Society, now spends more than £25 million a year.
The second characteristic is the extensive tax concessions which charities quite properly enjoy, with full public support. Charities are a uniquely privileged category of organisation. They enjoy complete freedom from income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and capital transfer tax, and even enjoy mandatory partial relief from local authority rates. Those concessions are now estimated to be worth more than £500 million a year in total in terms of lost revenue to the Treasury.
The third characteristic is the increased direct financial support that is available to charities from the Government. In 1981–82, central Government grants amounted to £130 million, which was more than three and a half times the amount five years before. In addition, quangos such as the Manpower Services Commission and other agencies grant more than £100 million a year to charities. Also, a large amount of unquantified local authority grant goes direct to charities.
The fourth characteristic is the almost complete absence of accountability within the charitable sector. Not all charities even have to be registered. Of those that are


registered, about three quarters have not filed any financial accounts during the past five years. Clearly what goes on in those organisations is not properly scrutinised. In addition, charities are not required to admit people to their annual general meetings in the way that shareholders are admitted to the annual general meetings of companies. It is astonishing that bodies which receive so much direct and indirect Government aid, and which enjoy such extraordinarily favoured status, are not more answerable to the public or the taxpayer. It is against that background that I produced my Bill.
Before explaining the three provisions in the Bill, I should tell the House that the present scope for abuse with regard to charities is very considerable. However, from my experience and the extensive contacts that I have in the charitable sector I can happily say that at present cases of abuse are limited, although there are some signs that the number is increasing. The vast majority of charities are doing an excellent job and are responsibly managed but, as the Charity Commissioners make clear in their annual report, which was published last week, there is a danger that the image of charities could be tarnished if malpractice became more widespread.
My Bill has three provisions. First, it introduces a new and unified system of compulsory registration for all charities whose income is in excess of £1,000 per annum. That puts an end to the existing anomaly whereby there is no system of registration at all in Northern Ireland, very limited and very narrow categories of charities need to be registered in Scotland, and the system of registration in England and Wales is very incomplete.
Charities should be seen as part of the public domain. Compulsory universal registration of all the larger charities in the way that I have suggested would be a recognition of the fact that they are in that public domain. The Bill provides for a registrar of charities, but in practice the registrar could work with, or be incorporated within, the Charity Commission.
The second provision requires all registered charities to make an annual return containing a list of the names and addresses of the current trustees. The return would also include an up-to-date set of annual accounts and there would be an obligation to subject them to an independent audit. The registrar would need to charge a modest fee to cover the cost of maintaining the register, and all the returns would be available for inspection by the public. Failure to make an annual return within a reasonable time limit would render the trustees personally liable to financial penalties—a sanction which would ensure that the trustees took a more active interest.
The third provision would allow anyone who has given money to a charity to have the right to attend its annual general meeting. To obtain admission, donors would have to produce an official receipt from the charity concerned, and once admitted they would not be permitted to vote, but could raise subjects, provided that they had given advance

written notice of their intentions. I do not believe that that would lead to annual general meetings being swamped by cranks. It would concentrate the minds of the trustees and serve to promote both accountability and efficiency.
The overall purpose of the Bill is to deter and prevent malpractice within the charitable sector. I hope that the substantial public resources involved in charitable activity will thereby be more properly used. That will help to promote the confidence which the public and the Government have in charities and will lead to greater resources being made available to them. In turn, that will enable them to do the increased job that we all want them to do.
On 4 May the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking about charities, said:
There is no public opinion brought to bear upon them. The press knows nothing of their expenditure. Parliament knows nothing of it. It is too much to say they are managed by angels and archangels and do not, like the rest of humanity, stand in need of supervision, criticism and rebuke.
Those are the words, not of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but of Mr. Gladstone, who spoke on 4 May 1863 during a debate on his proposal to tax charitable bequests. That proposal was quite properly thrown out by the House. Although I should be very pleased to have my remarks quoted approvingly in the House in 121 years' time, I hope that we shall not have to wait until the year 2105 before the simple but necessary reforms contained in my Bill are implemented.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Timothy Yeo, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Ken Weetch and Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

REGISTRATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CHARITIES

Mr. Timothy Yeo accordingly presented a Bill to require all charities to be registered; to make regular annual returns (including independently audited financial accounts) available for public inspection, and to grant access to annual general meetings to all financial supporters. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any adminstrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act;
(b) any sums required for the payment of grants or advances under, and any other expenses of the Secretary of State under, that Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day — Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we move to the Committee stage of the Bill, I should like to draw a matter to your attention. Many of us in Scotland object to such Bills being taken on the Floor of the House, because we think that they should be considered in an assembly of Scotland. However, I shall leave that aside.
When I arrived at the House on Monday I went to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of the amendments that had been tabled to the Bill. I had read The Whip and seen that the Bill was to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House in one day. At that point there was a page and half of amendments. I then tabled some amendments, of which you will be aware Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), some Conservative Members and some Opposition Front Bench Members also tabled amendments. Since then, the number of amendments and new clauses has increased to 261. Of those, 212 have been tabled by the Government.
I submit that that is an abuse of the procedure whereby, I gather, we agreed that the Bill should be considered in Committee in a day. I accept that in the strict political sense the Bill is not controversial, but it contains many provisions which concern our constituents. When we originally agreed that the Committee stage should be taken in one day, it was understood that the Bill was a consolidation measure and contained no great major changes. That is no longer the case——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising matters that have nothing to do with me. The usual channels decide the allocation of time. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any complaints about the amendments he should take them up with the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is responsible for their selection. I have nothing to do with the Committee stages of Bills.

Mr. Maxton: Surely, Mr. Speaker, you are the person responsible for deciding whether we have a Committee on the Floor of the House or upstairs. Even at this late stage I believe that we should consider moving upstairs.

Mr. Speaker: The House committed the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. It was a decision of the House, not my decision.

Mr. Maxton: But that was prior to the tabling of all these amendments. We are now in a wholly different position from that when the House committed the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I must repeat that the hon. Gentleman has raised a whole series of matters which would be more properly dealt with by his hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), who is sitting in the Opposition Chief Whip's seat.

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

pm

Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I know that there is a multitudinous list of

amendments, but it is possible that there is a typographical error. Between now and the end of proceedings, would you consider whether new clauses 6 and 8 might be selected for discussion because they are both important and both in order, yet do not appear on the list?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): New clause 8 has not been selected, but it may be debated with amendment No. 117. I hope that we can now proceed.

Clause 1

POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL ROADS AUTHORITIES

Mr. Jim Craigen: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'thereof' and insert
'of their intention in that regard'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'thereof' and insert 'of such intention'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 16, after 'representation', insert
`and give notice to the person making it and, with a note or copy of the representation, to the frontagers (or to the other frontagers if it was a representation by a frontager) of the authority's decision as regards whether or not to proceed with the addition or deletion following the representation'.
No. 5, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'persons' and insert `frontagers'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'proposed addition or deletion' and insert
'a decision following a representation'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 27, leave out ' (a)
No. 8, in page 2, line 28, leave out
`if that addition or deletion is subsequently made'
and insert
`within 28 days of such notice'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 29, leave out
'by summary application to the Sheriff'
and insert
`to the Secretary of State'.
No. 10, in page 2, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert
`and, where that decision requires the addition or deletion to be proceeded with, shall be given effect to forthwith by the local roads authority.'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
'(5A) A decision of which notice is given under subsection (4) above shall not be given effect to until the 28 days mentioned in subsection (5) above have expired or, if the matter has been referred under the said subsection (5) to the sheriff, until the summary application has been disposed of or abandoned.'.
No. 55, in clause 13, page 14, line 16, leave out 'they all' and insert
`the requisite number of the frontagers so'.
No. 56, in page 14, line 16, leave out 'their behalf' and insert 'behalf of the frontagers'.
No. 59, in page 14, line 33, at end insert—
'(9) In subsection (4) above, "the requisite number" has the same meaning in relation to the private road and the land fronting or abutting the road as it has in section 1(6) of this Act in relation to the road and land mentioned in that section.'.

Mr. Craigen: I am sure that the Minister will be responsive to the objective of the amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that the frontagers should know the score about the local authority's decision on whether to add or delete a road from a list. During Second Reading I said that the valuation roll was a useful means of ascertaining ownership. As the Minister is aware, the Highland region expressed concern about ascertaining


ownership in certain parts of that region. The amendments will ensure that owners are notified of a local authority decision. A time limit is imposed within which objections must be registered in certain respects. It is reasonable that people should be informed of any decision where that time limit does not apply to other aspects of this clause.
We believe that the Secretary of State, rather than the sheriff, would be a more appropriate person to determine appeals, and I shall go into more detail about that later. As the clause stands, any appeal would be heard by the sheriff within the specified time limit.
Amendment No 55 relates to the requisite number of frontages. It allows a local authority to require that a private road is brought pp to a specific standard. Subsection (4) contains a provision for the authority to do the necessary work subject to reimbursement of its costs by the frontagers. That provision is useful because, quite often, frontagers do not want to become directly involved in seeking tenders and supervising contracts.
Problems can arise when seeking the unanimous approval of all frontagers. Indeed, in the Highlands there would be a great problem in identifying the frontagers. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has suggested that "requisite number" would be an appropriate amendment to insert in clause 1. However, since the amendment was tabled COSLA has suggested that "simple majority" would be a more straightforward term than "requisite number". I do not know whether, at this late stage, such a change could be achieved. I am mindful of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about the number of amendments tabled. Indeed, my heart sunk at the beginning of the week when I saw the sheer volume of amendments with which we must deal.
COSLA's suggestion was designed to clarify that we are talking about a simple majority in relation to the requisite number. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Gentleman said that he would speak later about the appeal procedure. It might be helpful if I mentioned the Government's attitude to amendment No. 9. It can be argued that the sheriff has better local knowledge than the Secretary of State when considering individual cases. He will weigh all the evidence before any decision is made.
With the proviso that the Government are not inclined to accept amendment No. 9, the hon. Gentleman has made an excellent case for the other amendments. They are in response to points made by COSLA, and the procedure would be simplified by them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 3, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'thereof' and insert 'of such intention'.

No. 4, in page 2, line 16, after 'representation', insert
'and give notice to the person making it and, with a note or copy of the representation, to the frontagers (or to the other frontagers if it was a representation by a frontager) of the authority's decision as regards whether or not to proceed with the addition or deletion following the representation'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'persons' and insert `frontagers'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'proposed addition or deletion' and insert
'a decision following a representation'.

No. 7, in page 2, line 27, leave out `(a)'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 28, leave out
`if that addition or deletion is subsequently made'
and insert
'within 28 days of such notice'.—[Mr. Craigen.]

Mr. Craigen: I may have confused you, Mr. Walker, but I did not hear you mention amendment No. 9. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the point of the amendment. We thought that the Secretary of State rather than the sheriff should deal with this matter, simply to bring some uniformity to the scene.
I find it interesting that the Minister said that the sheriff would have more local knowledge than the Secretary of State. I spent many a long hour on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and others, and we were constantly told that the Secretary of State for Scotland knew all about the local authorities when it came to rate-capping. It is unfortunate, for those ironic reasons that the Minister is unable to accept the point of amendment No. 9. Perhaps he will have a think about it.

Mr. Maxton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is difficult to accept that the sheriff knows better than the Secretary of State in this matter. Increasingly, in all the legislation in which we have been involved since I came to the House, the sheriff has had more put on to him. By the education Acts we have shoved appeals on to the sheriff, by local government Acts we have shoved appeals on to the sheriff, and now divorce matters are to be dealt with by the sheriff, which of course he can handle.
Time and again we ask the courts, and the sheriffs in particular, to take on burdens. It is impossible for them to have the knowledge to carry out this duty efficiently. Therefore, they will have to seek advice. They will not be able to get that advice from the local authority, because the appeal is often to some extent against the local authority. The sheriffs will therefore have to go to the Scottish Office experts on roads for advice. That being so, would it not be simpler and more even-handed if everyone went to the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Allan Stewart: The point about uniformity has been made by COSLA, but I repeat that it is appropriate for the sheriff to consider individual cases, to discharge the matter quickly. The answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is that we are not imposing an extra burden on the sheriffs. These matters have been decided by sheriffs since the passage of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, and there is no particular reason why the procedure should be changed.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 2, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert
'and, where that decision requires the addition or deletion to be proceeded with, shall be given effect to forthwith by the local roads authority.'.

No. 11, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
'(5A) A decision of which notice is given under subsection (4) above shall not be given effect to until the 28 days mentioned in subsection (5) above have expired or, if the matter has been referred under the said subsection (5) to the sheriff, until the summary application has been disposed of or abandoned. '.—[Mr. Craigen.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 13 to 18, 66 to 69, 72, 91, 101, 140, 141, 143, 144, 146 to 153, 155, 184 to 188, 212, 216, 233, 234.

Mr. Stewart: These amendments are technical and drafting amendments, the majority of which change the term "land or premises" and "lands and heritages" to "land".

Mr. Maxton: I always get slightly worried when Ministers say that amendments are technical, particularly when we have a list of amendments as long as this. Many of us would like to know—the explanation does not have to last more than a couple of minutes—why this change is taking place.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: With the leave of the Committee, I shall put together the Questions on amendments Nos. 13 to 18. The Question is—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I had understood that the purpose of these debates was that when arguments were put to Ministers there should be an opportunity for them to reply. However, we seem to be proceeding to a decision on these amendments when we have not yet had the opportunity of having even a succinct, three-sentence reply from the Minister.

The Chairman: If the Minister does not move quickly enough, that is not my fault. A few minutes ago the Committee was complaining about the enormous volume of work before it. I am merely seeking to ensure that business moves along expeditiously. If the Minister wishes to reply, I shall of course call him.

Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I accept your explanation, particularly as we know that this is a rather slow Minister.

Mr. Maxton: And you are a fast Chairman, Sir.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the amendments to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). The Bill as drafted includes the terms "land or premises" and "lands and heritages" and "land". If these terms, which for all practical purposes are synonymous, are retained in the Bill, the courts would naturally assume that we meant something different, and would try to interpret them differently. In fact, the terms are identical, and therefore we propose to delete the terms "land or premises" and "lands and heritages" and insert the word "land" throughout the Bill.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am just a little intrigued. I was not going to intervene and I had taken little notice of this tangle of Government amendments, but the Minister's explanation has puzzled me more than the amendments. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that lands and heritages are the same thing, but the courts might be expected to make some kind of false differentiation between them because both phrases are in the Bill, and might be allowed to remain in the Act. Therefore, to guard against that possibility of ambiguity, the amendments have been moved.
The Minister will be aware, as I am, that "lands and heritages" is a phrase that crops up in Scottish statute time

and again. I am curious to know whether we are now setting a precedent. Is he saying that from now on the term "lands and heritages" will disappear because lands equals heritages and therefore the word "heritages" is redundant in the law of Scotland? I had always understood that there was a distinction between them, and perhaps he will say a little more about this. He is changing the face of Scottish law, apparently under the argument that he is not changing the substance. If there is no difference between "lands" and "heritages"—I thought that there was a distinction —he should say a word or two more about it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I have no such vaunting ambition to change the law of Scotland as that expounded by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). In the Bill as drafted there are these different terms. The simple thing is to replace them with one single term "land", and that is the purpose of these amendments.

Mr. Dewar: We had perhaps better leave this point, but I warn the Minister that in all the Scottish Bills that are to follow in the years ahead of us both I shall be looking wih great care to see whether the words "lands and heritages" appear. I promise the Minister that there will be endless amendments based on this authoritarian, ex cathedra pronouncement.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I had understood that the word "heritage"—the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has just confirmed this —implied that the land had been inherited. I take the opportunity wholeheartedly to welcome this movement on the part of the Government to do away with this anachronistic term. Henceforth, land in Scotland will be known only as land. I have no doubt that in due course we shall do away with the concept of inherited wealth and inherited land.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'include' and insert 'includes'.

No. 14, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 15, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'front or abut' and insert 'fronts or abuts'.

No. 16, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'have' and insert `has'.

No. 17, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 18, in page 2, line 45, leave out 'front or abut' and insert 'fronts or abuts'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart].

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: I had hoped that the Minister would outline why he feels that the proposed changes to the clause will be beneficial to the roads of Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The clause sets out the general powers and duties of local roads authorities in Scotland. It codifies the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 and several subsequent Acts, including the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892. The variety of terms for roads employed in Scottish roads law has led to difficulties in interpretation, especially since the reorganisation of local government when the former burghs ceased to exist. Under the clause, the multiplicity of terms is to be replaced with "road", as defined in clause 144. The requirement for local roads authorities to keep roads listed is being rationalised, the current requirement being different under


various Acts. There is a particular difficulty between the previous burghs and the landward areas. These are the main provisions in the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE ADVANCES TO LOCAL ROADS AUTHORITIES ETC.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 38, after 'shall', insert 'subject to subsection (4A) below'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 23, in clause 3, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that advances under this section defray the increased local roads authority expenditure attributable to the passing of this Act.'

Mr. Craigen: The purpose of the amendment is to get a guarantee from the Minister that the additional costs that will fall on local authorities in Scotland as a result of this consolidation measure will be met from central Government and that there will be some recompense to the local authorities for the new responsibilities that they are taking on.
Some of the gloss of this consolidation measure has worn off for me. I am mindful of the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) on Second Reading, when he referred to the problems that had subsequently arisen from the Civic Government (Scotland) Act. Mercifully, I was not a member of the Committee that considered that legislation but I wonder how many problems involving costs to local authorities are likely to arise from the Bill.
The introduction to the Bill makes it clear that there are a number of innovatory clauses. We are not talking only about consolidation. I hope that the Minister will take on board my advice that the next time one of his top advisers suggests that there should be a consolidation measure he should either throttle him or send him to St. Kilda to undertake research into extinct populations. I think that this consolidation measure will cause road authorities in Scotland to incur a fair amount of extra cost.
When the Secretary of State issued earlier in the year his outline of expenditure on roads in Scotland in the foreseeable future it became evident that there will be even less money available for the maintenance and repair of our roads. That caused a great deal of concern to many people. Many of our secondary roads are in disrepair and a recent parliamentary answer told us that structural repairs are being carried out to 13 miles of motorway and five miles of hard shoulder, which falls within the responsibility of the Scottish Office. That is out of a total of 147 miles of motorway in Scotland, including the 15 miles of local authority motorway in the Strathclyde region.
Bearing in mind the costs that are arising for local authorities, it is important that the Government should accept the principle that is set out in the amendment. I am glad to see that the Minister with responsibilities for health in Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), is in the Chamber. I was interested to read that, following a series of fatal accidents in Strathclyde, the

region spent about £600,000 in Argyll on replacing suspect timber barriers with barriers of a more robust design. That is a substantial sum to be incurred in Argyll, albeit for the important purpose of improving road safety, which I am sure we all support. I hope that the Minister, in his other capacity, will speak less forcefully about the need for cutting public expenditure when he knows of the amount of money that his own area is incurring in making improvements to road safety.
Shortly after Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, I received a letter from the Strathclyde regional council on a constituency matter, the condition of the Castle Bay street carriageway. I was concerned about the condition of the road and the council's reply was interesting. The assistant divisional engineer said:
An inspection of this has now been made and I agree with the comments made. However, I would state that other priorities have precluded me from including this section of street in my present resurfacing programme. A supplementary programme may be possible even at this stage in the financial year and consideration will be given to the inclusion of Castle Bay Street in the event of this occurring.
Any hon. Member could refer to the condition of the streets in his or her constituency.

Mr. Maxton: I am delighted to be able to make these comments from this seat in the Chamber, which is sometimes occupied by Liberal Members who represent constituencies in the Border region. I am certain that there are many roads in the Border region that are in a state of disrepair. I am sure that the constituents of Liberal Members who represent constituencies in the Border region would have been happy to see them in their places and to hear them advancing arguments on their behalf. I am sure, too, that their constituents would like to see their roads repaired. The Committee will be aware that neither of the two alliance Members who represent the Border region are present to make those representations.

Sir Hector Monro: Had members of the Liberal party been present, they might well have welcomed the great improvement to the A7 that links the border region to the M6. The Government have invested £5 million and have provided an excellent bypass at Canonbie. These are improvements that the Liberal party should be welcoming.

Mr. Craigen: Yes, Mr. Walker, I read the Scottish Office press handout about the improved bypass. I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are occupying the Liberal Benches. No doubt the two hon. Members who represent the Borders are attending the Scottish Assembly.
I am concerned about the inadequacy of the resources for maintenance and repair, which most hon. Members would agree is a matter of great concern to many of their constituents. In roads authorities' budgets secondary roads are often given much lower priority in terms of repairs, and the deterioration is beginning to show.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Speaking as someone who has taken part in local government, I can claim to have some knowledge of what actually happens with road repairs. In some regional authorities the system resembles a job creation scheme. Instead of doing the necessary repair properly, they patch the road once and, when the repair fails, they patch it


again. In some areas of Glasgow such as Camphill and Pollokshaws, which were in my division, I have known cases where patches were repaired two, three or four times before the road was properly made up. I cannot think of a more inefficient and wasteful way of repairing roads.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) made a related point on Second Reading, and somebody subsequently wrote to me about her remarks and pointed out that, with limited resources, many authorities were forced to adopt the patching approach. I agree that such matters should be better managed, but, when one adopts the accountant's approach to everything, one sometimes squeezes out good management and common sense.

Mr. David Marshall: In many cases the repairs are carried out by private contractors, not by the works department of the local authority. Usually, when additional costs are incurred, it is because the private contractor asks for more money for work which was unforeseen when the contractor took on the job.

Mr. Craigen: My hon. Friend has made a good point. The extent to which public authorities give a considerable amount of business and employment by way of public contracts is often overlooked.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is not incumbent upon the local authority to do so. Renovations and repairs can be kept exclusively to the public works department so that the department can do that work in the summer and be available for road clearance in the winter.

Mr. Craigen: I am well aware of that, having served on a Statutory Instrument Standing Committee with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—a not uncommon experience in this Session, or ordeal, as one of my hon. Friends has naughtily suggested sotto voce.
These matters must be taken seriously because there has been a sizeable cut in the budget of most local authorities for maintenance and repair. That is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Home Robertson: I support the amendment, which is constructive and helpful. I welcome the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) to our deliberations. I am sure that last week he did not imagine that he would be sitting here now listening to debates on Scottish affairs. I also welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) who, I suspect, hoped that he would not be here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) is quite right. The Secretary of State asks Parliament to give local authorities more and more duties, rights and powers but he is remarkably reticent about providing the wherewithal which they need to fulfil those functions. Scattered through the Bill there are provisions that could involve local authorities in additional expenditure. For instance, clause 13(7) states:
A local roads authority may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure incurred by a person in making up or maintaining a private road.
Clause 14 provides for
Emergency work in relation to private roads.
Clause 15 again deals with private roads, and I could turn to any other part of the Bill and find that local authorities have been given power to undertake additional

works, or given additional responsibilities. If Parliament expects — even by implication — local authorities to undertake such work, we should make the necessary funds available.

Mr. Maxton: Although I am getting rather worried about speaking from this Bench, I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
Clause 1, which we have passed, makes it clear that we are imposing—or continuing to impose—a duty upon local authorities to
manage and maintain all … roads in their area
except the trunk roads, which are maintained by the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no "may be" about it. There is no give and take. The local authority is not empowered to maintain the roads if it so wishes. The clause is specific. It states that the local authority
shall manage and maintain … roads in their area".
The word used is "shall".
The local authorities are being continually harangued by the Government and told to cut expenditure in line with some economic policy which is now so debased that it no longer has any meaning, yet at the same time the Government continue to impose duties upon the local authorities. I am not referring only to clause 1. As we consider the Bill, we shall see more and more instances of what local authorities shall and shall not do, and many of the clauses will involve local authorities in extra expenditure. We should ensure that they have enough money to cover any roads expenditure which they have to undertake. If we do not, we are not justified in imposing the duties upon them.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) made a point about the piecemeal repair of roads. What she is complaining about is made worse by the failure to provide, and to secure for a number of years, proper financing for road repairs. Local authorities are often uncertain how much money they will have available to spend on road repairs. It is almost impossible for them to plan their road repair programmes for five years, which is what they ought to do, because they do not know how much money the Government will allow them to have. If they try to spend more on road repairs, the Government will probably rate-cap them. The piecemeal nature of maintenance and repair is often due to a lack of planning, which in turn is due to local government not knowing what its expenditure will be.

Mrs. McCurley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. Local authorities can estimate how much they will require for road repairs. If they do not have the experience to do that, they should not have the job. It is up to them to present the Government with a case.

Mr. Maxton: That is precisely my point. They know how to estimate. They employ many skilled staff so they can plan ahead, but when they put those estimates to the Government with the rest of their budget for road repairs or a bypass, which is of more concern to Conservative Members, who tend to represent rural constituencies, the Government say, "Yes, we think you might have a case, but in view of Government economic policy we are determined to cut public expenditure so we shall not allow you the money." Local authorities then find that they can do only a little here and a little there. They do not work the programme out properly with various other


organisations, but that is a matter with which we shall deal later. If the Government impose duties on local authorities, the local authorities must be given the money to enable them to do the work properly.
I am glad to see the Minister asking his new Parliamentary Private Secretary to go to the civil servants' Box for advice. The Conservative party in Scotland has reached a sorry pass when it has to use another Minister to act as a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. David Marshall: They do not have enough Scottish Members of Parliament.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives do not have enough Scottish Members to man their Benches properly, so they must use the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in such a lowly position. I have made my point, and perhaps the Minister now has the necessary answers.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall deal, first, with the general point about expenditure by roads authorities on maintenance and, secondly, with amendment No. 22.
It might assist hon. Members if I give the figures for such expenditure. In 1978–79 it was £90 million, in 1982–83 it was £141 million, and the estimate for 1984–85 is £167 million. No one denies that resources are limited, but those figures show a substantial level of overall expenditure on road maintenance. Priorities within roads authorities' areas are a matter for them.
Amendment No. 22 addresses the effect of the Bill on local authority expenditure. The financial memorandum makes it clear that no increase in public sector manpower is expected as a result of the Bill. Local authorities are responsible for maintaining more than 47,000 miles of public roads, so the additional few miles of newly constructed or made up to standard private roads should have a negligible impact, as most of them could be adopted under existing statutory powers.
It is worth observing that the standard of a road in a housing development, for example, and liability for its maintenance can be among the factors that are taken into account by assessors when arriving at rateable value. It is therefore possible that making up an adoption could result in increased rate income for the local roads authority.
5.45 pm
Some of the Bill's provisions will assist on expenditure. The road-borne provisions, for example, have been welcomed by local authorities, which have said that those provisions will save them money. Although local authorities will incur some extra expenditure on road lighting that is taken over from district councils, it will be more than offset by the new provision which allows conditions to be attached to the consent—under clause 20—to build a new road. By those means, local roads authorities will be able to require a housing developer to provide lighting as well as roads, thus saving the capital cost of providing a lighting system. The Bill's effects will therefore be small and will not all point in the same direction.
On amendment No. 22, I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) agrees that neither the Government nor the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities favour specific grants for current expenditure purposes. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not contradicting that principle, but wanted a reassurance on

expenditure. We do not think that there will be any significant increase in expenditure as a result of the Bill, but, in so far as any marginal increase in roads authorities expenditure arises as a result of the Bill, it will be taken into account in future rate support grant settlements.

Mr. Craigen: I should like to put on record that the Minister has said that he does not envisage there being any additional manpower requirements. Some local authorities fear that such requirements will be shunted on to them when operating the provisions in the Bill. I want the Minister to spell the matter out. We are drifting towards rate capping as additional costs incurred by local authorities might exceed the guidelines that have been set down by the Scottish Office in its wisdom.
If the Minister is saying that there will be little or no extra cost, that is one thing; but I should like an undertaking from him to the effect that he will look sympathetically on local authorities which are able to convince him or to argue—the two are not the same—that they have incurred extra costs as a result of the innovatory elements of the Bill.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister has said that the Government and COSLA oppose special grants. In the past, the Government have tended to blame COSLA alone, but the Minister has now clearly said that the Government oppose such grants. Do I gather from what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. C:raigen) said that he favours them?

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) must not put words into my mouth. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that local authorities would be recompensed by central Government for the costs which we felt they would incur as a result of the innovatory clauses in the consolidation Bill. The rate support grant, as it has been operating, was originally intended as a block grant, and it was left to local authorities to exercise certain powers. That gave them flexibility and seemed sensible.
However, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will be aware that the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and its predecessor legislation have created a situation in which the Government, by creating mandatory guidelines in place of the original voluntary guidelines, are, in effect, creating specific grants. In other words, the rate support grant, because it is becoming so rigidly tied to the guidelines, is, in effect, a whole series of specific grants.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber has not had the treat that I have had this Session of hours and hours in Committee on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, so I have heard Scottish Ministers say that no extra cost will be incurred. However, when one looks at the small print and questions local authorities, one soon discovers that there will be extra costs.
I want the Minister to make it perfectly clear that when local authorities find themselves caught up in the snare of rate capping the Government will take into account any extra costs that they can prove arose directly from the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I can give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) the assurance that we do


not envisage that the Bill will increase public service manpower, that we expect the changes in expenditure to be marginal, and that we have had no representations from local authorities to the effect that they believe that the Bill will result in significant expenditure being incurred. If they were to make such representations in future discussions with the Government, we should take full account of that. As I said, if there were marginal increases in their expenditure as a result of the Bill, that would be taken into account in future rate support grant settlements.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that, speaking generally, rate support grant was an aggregate of a series of specific grants. The Minister said that he was against specific grants but that, should special circumstances arise, the Government—being benign and responsive to the public and all that twaddle—would make a specific grant. The Minister said that the Government were against specific grants. I am becoming confused. Will the Minister please elucidate further?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston). The point of general principle is that, on balance, the local authorities and ourselves believe that specific grants should be adopted only for very good reasons and that, in general terms, it is better to give an overall rate support grant; and within that overall total the local authority has discretion.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the specific grants he has in mind would relate to situations such as ghastly winters, when local authorities incur special extra costs because of the expense involved in keeping roads clear of snow and ice?

Mr. Stewart: The Government give specific grants for current expenditure to local authorities, but only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) points out, in exceptional circumstances. I am saying not that we would envisage giving a specific grant related to the enactment of this Bill, but that, if there were marginal increases in local roads authorities' expenditure as a result of the Bill, that would be taken into account in the general rate support grant settlement.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN AUTHORITIES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Are there at present such agreements as are mentioned in the clause between the Secretary of State and local authorities? In particular, do such agreements apply to the A74, a road which is familiar to many hon. Members, for its repair and upkeep? If so, are they of a general nature — in other words, is there a general contract under which the Strathclyde region and the Dumfries and Galloway region act as agents for the Secretary of State to do whatever repairs are necessary —or are authorities contracted to do the work when the Secretary of State and his roads department decide that they shall be done?
That question applies to the A74 and other trunk roads for snow clearing and other activities of that nature. In other words, is there a general power for local authorities to act as agents for the Secretary of State on trunk roads, or are we speaking of specific contracts for specific work? If agreements of such a general nature exist between the Secretary of State and local authorities, what happens when a trunk road such as the A74 encompasses two authorities? What is done to ensure that there is co-operation between the two regional authorities for any work that is necessary on that trunk road?
I ask that because hon. Members who drive regularly along the A74 will be aware of the number of road works that always seem to be taking place. One would imagine that there would be some planning to ensure that the number of works being carried out at one time was kept to a limit. At times, I have gone through 10 sets of road works in a stretch of 40 miles on the A74.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has been lucky.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman says that I was lucky. I know what he means, because often, when driving on the A74, there seem to be innumerable road works.
What fees, if any, does the Scottish Office pay to local authorities for any management, consultancy and engineering skills that are used by those authorities? Is there a fee, over and above the cost of the contract, for the time taken by roads department engineers and staff who would otherwise be employed in ensuring that their local authorities' roads were maintained?

Mr. Allan Stewart: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) pointed out, the clause relates to agreements between the Secretary of State and local authorities for the delegation of his functions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause simply codifies a number of existing arrangements. He asked about the nature of agreements between regional councils and the Secretary of State. I can confirm his understanding that all regional councils have agency agreements with the Secretary of State for trunk roads. They are general agreements, but the Scottish Development Department controls the maintenance expenditure allocation.
As for the involvement of more than one authority, obviously the authorities discuss these matters, but it is the SDD's job, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to co-ordinate these activities.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked about fees. There is a standard scale of fees. I can confirm that it covers administration and engineering supervision.

6 pm

Mr. Johnston: The subsection refers to cattle grids. Although I know that the subject of cattle grids will be considered in much more detail later, as the clause deals with agreements between the trunk road authority and the regional council, perhaps we can consider the matter briefly now.
I have long been puzzled by the fact that there is apparently a regulation which says that one cannot put a cattle grid across a main or A-classification road. For example, the Minister may know that in the village of Mallaig there is a great problem with sheep, which move in and out of the village without let or hindrance. The local people proposed that some form of hindrance, such as a


cattle grid, would be a solution to the problem. They were told that that would be impossible because one cannot put a cattle grid on a main road, although it is not much of a road as the Minister may know. His Parliamentary Private Secretary is certainly aware of that. The road is classified as a main road and so a cattle grid cannot be put across it. I wonder, in view of the clause, whether it might be possible to vary that absolute rule and allow cattle grids to be put in by agreement, in such special circumstances.

Sir Hector Monro: While the hon. Gentleman is waiting for a reply on the question of cattle grids, I shall add another point. Having seen the sheep at Mallaig, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps the sheep are corning into the village in search of the rather good cabbages that grow there.
I noted that my hon. Friend took the responsibility for co-ordinating repairs on the A74, to which there has been reference. I should like to pursue that matter now, although I have tabled an amendment with roughly the same objective that will be dealt with later on.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that co-ordination is adequate. In recent weeks, and perhaps even months, there have been an average of 10 to 12 lane stoppages on the relatively short stretch between the Strathclyde boundary and the foot of the M74. No work is going on in the opposite lane. New kerbs are being put in on the other side, although such repairs do not seem to be of very great importance.
The repairs are being carried out at the height of the tourist season, when there is much heavy traffic on that main arterial road between Scotland and England. It is annoying to find so many stretches under repair, with having restrictions of about 18 inches at either side of the road. There are also hold-ups while central reservation barriers are being installed.
I cannot believe that a superman cannot be put in charge of all those repairs, who would say that they cannot go on in extenso at present. They must be phased. It must be possible to deal with the repairs more effectively to help the through traffic that must use the road.
I have already drawn the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister and to his predecessor, as well as the Minister before that. I said that co-ordination seemed to be nil and asked whether we could have one supremo in charge, perhaps of the Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway sectors where there is no closure at present, to put forward a programme to ensure that tourists and regular industrial traffic are not inconvenienced to such an intolerable degree.
This is a serious point. I am regularly inconvenienced and I know that right hon. and hon. Members who use the road suffer frequently. We are very small cogs in the wheel, so to speak, but we must remember that others suffer besides ourselves and they must be inconvenienced more than we are, especially the heavy trunk liners that move between Scotland and England.
It is no use saying that the road is breaking up fast. I have eyes in my head, and I can see how much the road is breaking up. Frequently, it seems that the road repairs could wait another few months, while sections in need of repair are completed, rather than have long lengths of the road under repair at once. There is a three-mile operation at present. That could be split up into sections, as there are many places where drivers can change lanes. Surely it is inconvenient and unnecessary to carry out repairs to long

stretches of the road? I do not believe that Ministers have been on that road frequently enough to see to what extent the public are being held up.

Mr. David Marshall: I support what has been said by the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), although I believe that they were arguing about the wrong thing. The repairs to the A74 are rather like painting the Forth road bridge—they are never finished. We should be asking for a new motorway rather than continuing to repair a road that is known to be inadequate for the volume of traffic using it and which has a terrible record of deaths and accidents. The Minister should seriously consider the matter. Successive Governments have refused to rebuild the road as a motorway from Carlisle to Glasgow. We shall never achieve anything merely by repairing it, and it will cost much more in the end.

Mr. Bill Walker: In the event of a bridge becoming part of the trunk road network—in other words, where a bridge, like the Tay bridge, is handed over to the regional authority—in what terms would agreement between the region and the Secretary of State be reached? If an amendment that is tabled for discussion later were to be passed, the effect would be that repairs to the bridge would be carried out by the Secretary of State and the cost would not be borne by the region. It is important to recognise that some bridges are motorways on stilts and that other bridges are merely bridges. When they are motorways on stilts, the Secretary of State has responsibility for repairing them. If a bridge, such as the Tay bridge, is built under special arrangements that still stand and if the tolls are removed, the region will probably take over the bridge. I am concerned that the costs should not be borne by the ratepayers in Blairgowrie and elsewhere.

Mr. Home Robertson: Much has been said about lack of co-ordination of maintenance on a particular road on the west coast of Scotland. I support what has been said about roads by all Members who have taken part in this debate. The problem covers the whole of Scotland. The Boundary Commission made a mess of my constituency, and I can no longer live there. I have to travel between the Borders and Lothian regions. The lack of co-operation between those two roads authorities and the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for trunk roads, means that, every time I go to my constituency, I experience some sort of delay, I am held up by unco-ordinated road works and road painting operations, the erection of signs and general fiddling about. That is so especially on the Al trunk road, which is totally inadequate and severely overloaded. It is a serious problem.
We have heard many examples of the problem from right hon. and hon. Members. It exists throughout Scotland. It seems to me that the clause gives new powers to the Secretary of State to co-ordinate activities in relation to roads. I express the hope that the Secretary of State and, when the time comes, the Scottish assembly will exercise those powers and co-ordinate these matters.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) said that the clause applies to cattle grids. It does so because it codifies section 13 of the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Act 1950. There is no bar on cattle grids on roads such as the one he


mentioned, but it is a matter of looking at each case on its merits. I understand that in that case it was concluded that a cattle grid was not justified.

Mr. Johnston: The Minister said that each case is looked at on its merits, which sounds splendid. Does he mean that the Scottish Office looks at a case on its definition of what the merits are, or that the region and the Scottish Office sit down together and discuss it? In other words, if the region wants to have a cattle grid, surely its case has strong merit.

Mr. Stewart: The Scottish Office takes into account whatever representations are made in any particular case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to co-ordination in relation to the A74. There is a general point that one must make about maintenance of the A74. It is that Tarmacadam can be laid only in the summer months, which, of course, is during the tourist season. However, the Scottish Development Department keeps overall control and tries to minimise the inevitable inconvenience of the roads maintenance programme.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr Marshall) raised the more general question of the A74 and improvements to it. The idea that the whole road should become a motorway has often been advocated, as the hon. Gentleman said, but it would be an extremely costly undertaking, and is not justified by the volume of traffic.

Mr. Craigen: Has the Scottish Office quantified how much that would cost?

Mr. Stewart: I can give the hon. Gentleman an estimate of that figure, but I do not have it at present. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are planning to spend £35 million over seven years on a comprehensive programme to improve the A74, and we are proposing to extend the M74 southwards, by 10 miles, from Draffan to Millbank, at a cost of approximately £31 million. There is a proposal to extend the A74 northwards from Maryville to the former Glasgow city boundary, at an estimated cost of £25 million. I hope that shows that the Government are committed to improving the M74.
I can now answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). My recollection is that the total cost of extending the M74 to the border would be about £200 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked what would happen if the Tay road bridge became a trunk road. I emphasise that we have no plans to make the Tay road bridge a trunk road. It does not connect to trunk roads on either side. However, in the hypothetical situation that he mentioned, repairs would be borne by the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

TRUNK ROADS

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 22, leave out
'this section to direct that a road shall become a trunk road'
and insert 'subsection (2)(a) above'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong: With this it will convenient to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 25 to 27, 34 to 44, 46 to 49, 76 to 85, 89, 92, 95 to 100, 102, 104 to 116, 130 to 132, 139, 142, 145, 154, 156, 158, 166, 167, 189, 190, 190A, 192, 193, 195 to 197, 211, 213, 215, 218 to 223, 228.

Mr. Stewart: Amendment No. 24 and the amendments associated with it have a single purpose, which is to extend certain provisions in the Bill to "proposed roads", which are roads being planned or constructed, but not yet open to traffic, so they are not "roads" as defined in clause 144.
The term "proposed road" is not new; indeed, it is used in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970. However, it has not proved possible to incorporate it into the definition of "road" in clause 144 because it would have unfortunate consequences in several of the Bill's clauses. For example, it is inappropriate that there should be a power to stop up a proposed road when no right of passage exists, or to say that the offence of camping on a road should apply just because there is an imaginary line running across a field. There is a large number of amendments in the group, but they all have that single and simple purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 6, line 24, after 'road', insert or a proposed road,'.

No. 26, in page 6, line 25, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'

No. 27, in page 6, line 26, after 'is', insert '(or will be)'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 28, at beginning insert
'subject to subsection (7) (i) below,'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 29 to 33, 208 and 209.

Mr. Stewart: These are technical and drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 6, line 41, leave out 'such'.

No. 30, in page 6, line 41, after 'order', insert 'under this section'.

No. 31, in page 7, line 9, after 'road', insert—
'(i) is revoked by a subsequent order made at any time before the date on which that road is opened for the purposes of through traffic, Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall have no effect as regards the revoking order, but within 28 days of the revoking order's having been made notice of the revocation shall be published by the Secretary of State in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected;
(ii)'.

No. 32, in page 7, line 10, leave out
'time before the date on which that road is opened for the purposes of through traffic'
and insert 'such time as aforesaid'.

No. 33, in page 7, line 13, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (6) above'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Home Robertson: I hope that the House will be patient while I make a brief constituency point about clause 5(8). The Minister's Department is currently constructing a section of new trunk roads in my constituency—the Tranent and Musselburgh bypass. The


development is wholeheartedly welcomed in the neighbourhood and by people who travel on the Al road to the east of Edinburgh.
However, there has been a problem about pedestrian access. Some communities will be cut off by the new road. I refer in particular to the village of Wallyford, directly south of Musselburgh, which will be cut off from the neighbouring countryside by the new dual carriageway of the Al trunk road that is now under construction.
The East Lothian district council and the local district councillor for the Wallyford area have raised the issue. I understand that there have been discussions with the Minister's Department on the matter. While the new dual carriageway is being constructed, there is a manifest need for footpaths and cycleways to be provided to maintain existing access for the people of the area. I gather that under subsection (8) the Secretary of State will have powers and duties to provide necessary underpasses, footbridges, cycleways, footpaths and so on. We anticipate problems in my constituency. I hope that, under the terms of the clause, they will be solved. If the Minister can say anything about my constituency point, I shall be eternally grateful to him.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about his constituency problem. I hope that he will accept that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), will look into the matter and write to him on the present position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

GENERAL PROVISION AS TO SPECIAL ROADS

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 8, line 18, after 'road', insert
'(or proposed road in course of construction)'

No 35. in page 8, line 22, after 'road', insert
'(or proposed road in course of construction)'.

No. 36, in page 8, line 39, after 'road', insert '(or proposed road)'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS RELATING TO SPECIAL ROADS

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 9, line 41, after 'road', insert
'(or proposed road in course of construction)'

No. 38, page 9, line 43, after second 'road', insert '(or proposed road)'.

No.39, in page 10, line 2, after 'road', insert
'(or proposed road in course of construction)',

No. 40, in page 10, line 3, after 'route', insert 'and'—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I wish to ask the Minister a question before we leave all these clauses about roads. Will he tell me what a special road is?

Mr. Allan Stewart: A special road is a road on which particular classifications of traffic are permitted to travel; for example, a motorway.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 12, line 7, after `road', insert
'(or proposed road)'.

No. 42, in page 12, line 18, after 'roads', insert
'(or proposed roads)'.

No. 43, in page 12, line 21, after 'road', insert
'(or to a proposed road)'.

No. 44, in page 12, line 22, after 'road', insert
'(or to a proposed road)'. —[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed,  That the clause, as amended stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister confirm that the various changes that have taken place in roads legislation are only so that the particular classifications, which we now have, are for town and country planning purposes?

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point about the relevance of classification. Broadly speaking, he is correct. It is used to provide a hierarchy for route numbering and maps. The principal use is for town and country planning regulations, but it will also be used for road traffic regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

POWERS AS RESPECTS ROADS THAT CROSS OR JOIN PUBLIC ROADS OTHER THAN SPECIAL ROADS

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 25, after 'made', insert `by the roads authority'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 50, in page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
No. 51, in page 13, line 9, after 'section', insert
'by the Secretary of State as roads authority'.
No. 52, in page 13, line 13, leave out 'or confirmed'.
No. 54, in page 13, line 31, at end insert—
'(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed by a local roads authority in making an order under this section; and such regulations may in particular make provision as to the means of public notification of the proposal to make such an order and may make like provision in relation to the local roads authority as is made by subsection (4) above in relation to the Secretary of State.
(8) Where a local roads authority propose to make an order under this section, then, before the expiry of 28 days from the date of the first public notification, in accordance with regulations under subsection (7) above, of the proposal to make the order, any person may object to it to the authority, and—

(a) if no such objection is made, or objection is made but withdrawn, they may confirm the order themselves; and
(b)if such objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall determine the matter, and may confirm the order with or without modification or refuse to confirm it.'.

Mr. Forsyth: These amendments might seem complicated, but they will produce considerable savings in both time and administration. I was horrified to discover from a case in my constituency that, although local authorities have powers to make orders for side roads joining main public roads, where an order is made by a local authority, for example, to stop up a road that crosses a public road, it must be confirmed by the Secretary of State, to whom all objections must be sent in the first instance.
These orders usually concern local matters and are of purely local importance. I presume that the Secretary of State has more to do with his time than to get involved in these matters. Conservative Members believe in developing power to local authorities as far as possible. Therefore, the present arrangement seems absurd. It would be more sensible for objections to be sent initially to the local roads authority. If they were withdrawn, there would be no need to involve the Secretary of State. That is the purpose of these amendments.
The amendments also provide for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State to impose requirements regarding objections. Any orders made by local authorities to which objections are made would have to be determined by the Secretary of State. Orders made by the Secretary of State under clause 12 would remain unchanged.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). No one's interests would be prejudiced by his suggestions, and the administrative arrangements would be greatly simplified. There would be a useful saving in administrative time and effort. Therefore, I am happy to commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 12, line 26, after `road', insert '(or proposed public road)'.

No. 47, in page 12, line 27, after 'road', insert
`(or proposed public road which is to be a special road)'.

No. 48, in page 12, line 28, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.

No. 49, in page 12, line 29, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

No. 50, in page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

No. 51, in page 13, line 9, after 'section', insert
`by the Secretary of State as roads authority'.

No. 52, in page 13, line 13, leave out 'or confirmed' —[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 13, line 28, at beginning insert
`Except in a case to which section 125 of this Act applies,'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 94, 103, 133, 134, 138, 157, 159, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 214, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261.

Mr. Stewart: This group of amendments amends the Bill to the same extent as the Telecommunications Act 1984 amends existing Scottish roads law. They also alter references to the Road Traffic (Regulations) Act 1967 to references to the Road Traffic (Regulation) Act 1984 and make some minor consequential amendments to other legislation in schedule 8. The amendments relate to legislation that has passed through Parliament this Session.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 13, line 31, at end insert—
'(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed by a local roads authority in making an order under this section; and such regulations may in particular make provision as to the means of public notification of the proposal to make such an order and may make like provision in relation to the local roads authority as is made by subsection (4) above in relation to the Secretary of State.
(8) Where a local roads authority prooose to make an order under this section, then, before the expiry of 28 days from the date of the first public notification, in accordance with regulations under subsection (7) above, of the proposal to make the order, any person may object to it to the authority, and—
(a) if no such objection is made, or objection is made but withdrawn, they may confirm the order themselves; and
(b) if such objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall determine the matter, and may confirm the order with or without modification or refuse to confirm it.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Question proposed,  That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: The director of roads for the Strathclyde region pointed out that clause 12(3) refers to schedule 1, part I,
Procedures for making or confirming certain orders and schemes.
In the schedule only the Secretary of State is mentioned, although clause 12(2) states that these orders can be made by the roads authority. Will the Under-Secretary of State link the two points, because it may be that some modification is required?

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I hope that he will be content to leave the matter with me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

MAKING UP AND MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE ROADS

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 14, line 16, leave out 'they all' and insert
`the requisite number of the frontagers so'.

No. 56, in page 14, line 16, leave out 'their behalf' and insert 'behalf of the frontagers'.—[Mr. Craigen.]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 14, line 23, at beginning insert
`Without prejudice to section [Power to contribute to, or carry out, work on private roads] of this Act.'

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 58, in page 14, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
New Clause 5—Power to contribute to, or carry out, work on private roads—

'—(1) A local roads authority may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure incurred by a person in making up or maintaining a private road; and may, without prejudice to section 14 of this Act, at their own expense carry out any repair which they consider necessary in relation to a private road after giving such notice as is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt—

(a) a local roads authority do not incur responsibility for making up or maintenance of the private road by reason only of their acting under subsection (1) above;
(b) the carrying out of work by a local roads authority under subsection (1) above does not create any implication that


the private road, on completion of the work, is of a standard satisfactory to the authority for the purposes of section 15(1)(b) of this Act.'.

Mr. Forsyth: The amendments will be widely welcomed by those who have experienced the problems that arise for private roads. They are not what one might expect them to be. They are roads with a public right of passage, but their maintenance is not the responsibility of the roads authority. Local authorities and the Highland regional council have been arguing for a change along the lines of these amendments.
The amendments give local authorities discretionary power to carry out repairs to private roads at their own expense. Local authorities would find it of considerable benefit to the public using the roads and to the frontagers who have the legal responsibility for their maintenance.
Under clause 14, authorities have power to carry out emergency work at their own expense. It often makes better economic sense for repairs to be carried out before an emergency arises. Clause 13(7) enables roads authorities to meet all or part of the cost of making up a private road. That introduces the risk of an authority having to assume future responsibility for the maintenance of that road. The amendments and new clause will give authorities useful flexibility in dealing with problems caused by private roads by making it clear that by exercising discretion they will not be left open to future maintenance liabilities.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman's amendments respond to some of the problems being experienced by the Highland regional council in particular. My curiosity is aroused by the fact that, with his known Adam Smith Institute background, the hon. Gentleman proposes obliging local authorities to incur expenditure.

Mr. Forsyth: I had anticipated the hon. Gentleman making that point. The amendments by no means put an obligation on local authorities; they give them a discretionary power. I went out of my way to define a private road as one over which there is a public right of passage. As we have not yet taken the step of fitting meters to cars so that the private frontagers can get a return from those members of the public who use their roads, it seems reasonable that the local authorities should be given the power to carry out repairs if they so wish and to judge whether the public benefit is such that a contribution to the private road owners is justified.

Mr. Maxton: I am not yet sure whether I shall support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), mainly because I always find it extremely difficult to do so. Indeed, on the odd occasions when he might be right about something, it is still difficult to support him. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman, who normally wishes to put private finance into public concerns, is here trying to put public money into private concerns.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether his amendments will resolve a problem which was reported yesterday in the Glasgow Herald,  arising from an incident on the island of Arran? Arran Estates, which owns a bridge over a stream, which serves five or six houses in Lochranza, was instructed that the bridge was dangerous and was asked to do something about it. However, the

repairs would have cost between £2,500 and £3,000 and the owners were not prepared to carry them out, since they would have had no pecuniary return from the bridge. Instead they demolished it completely, thus leaving the people who live on the other side of the bridge with no means of road transport and, as it is a tidal stream, with no means of crossing the stream at certain times of the day.
If the amendments mean that such problems would not arise and that a local authority could repair the bridge before it became dangerous, I would support them. In that case the bridge was provided and owned privately, not by those who benefited from it. It may be a unique problem, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman or the Minister would tell me whether that case and others like it will be covered by the amendments.

Mr. Forsyth: I am not familiar with the problem to which the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred. However, there are two similar cases in my constituency. One involves the village of Ashfield, where a private developer did not finish off the road properly after selling properties to many of my constituents. The regional authority is anxious to repair the road, but because the road would first have to be made up to full highway standard—at present it is used only for access — there is an impasse. Strangely enough, the access road to the village runs over a narrow bridge above a railway line — the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is probably familiar with the case—which is also in need of repair. The amendments have been tabled to give local authorities the power, if it will benefit the public, to contribute towards the costs of private owners.

Mr. Donald Stewart: When the Minister replies, will he deal with the provision that existed in section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894, which gave highway authorities a discretionary power to make up some roads, without the risk of incurring liability? If that provision is not reinserted in the Bill it will cause great difficulty to the adopted roads programme of the Western Isles council. Will the Minister allow that discretion to continue?

Mr. Home Robertson: I understand the problem to which the amendments are addressed, and for once the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is trying to be helpful. He apparently wishes to ensure that access roads are maintained and kept open. However, I am not completely persuaded that this is the best way to do that. One thing that worries me is that the private proprietor of a road or bridge might accept public money from the local roads authority to upgrade and maintain his road, and then deny public access to it. If that is still possible, it is very unsatisfactory.
I have always understood that local roads authorities had discretionary power — this deals with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) — to make up roads if they believed it necessary. However, it is difficult for them to do so because many authorities are reluctant to take on new commitments, especially under the financial constraints being imposed by the Government. There are many private roads in various nooks and crannies of Scotland which most of the population probably believe are public roads. They are generally considered as public access roads and


many private owners rightly countenance that. In my constituency, there are serious problems with private roads.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Under clause 14, local authorities have powers, in emergencies, to repair private roads, and under clause 13(1) they must serve notices on the owners. However, that might cause problems under clause 15, which relates to authorities adopting roads. That gets us back to the problem that the road must be made up to a proper highway standard, with all the costs that that involves, which is rather like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In many cases my amendments would help to resolve problems that have continued for years.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful for that explanation, but I remain worried about the amendments, for the reason that I gave. In some cases public money might be used to upgrade a road to which public access is subsequently denied.
It would be more appropriate for the local authority to take over any road which is commonly regarded as a public road. In my constituency there is a continuing problem with a network of private roads in a relatively new housing estate in the village of Gifford. The people who bought houses on that estate want the highways authority, Lothian regional council, to take over the roads, but it is not prepared to do so unless they are made up to a high standard. A bizarre situation has developed, because the highways authority has imposed a weight restriction on a bridge nearby, which has had the effect of diverting a significant amount of traffic, including heavy traffic, on to the private roads, but still the highways authority refuses to upgrade the roads, even though it has diverted public traffic on to them. In circumstances like that, I should have thought that there was a cast-iron case for the roads authority to take over the road.
There may be borderline cases, and I suspect that it is those for which the hon. Member is trying to cater in his amendment. If that is the case, that is fine, subject to a reasonable guarantee that the public will have access to roads which have benefited from public subsidy.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has done the Committee a service by putting forward these amendments. They deal with the problem in his constituency to which he has referred, and with a problem that is relatively common throughout the highlands and islands. The new clause will give an authority a discretionary power to carry out repairs to a private road at its own expense in non-emergency situations without the current expenditure liability of adopting the road, the point referred to by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has pointed out that there is a provision in the Bill to deal with emergencies.
The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) rightly said that some authorities, of which the Highland regional council is an example, acting under section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894, deal with this kind of problem on some private roads. That Act will fall with the Bill, so that to continue the provision my hon. Friend's amendment or something similar will be necessary.
My hon. Friend has identified a real problem. The new clause and the amendments that he has tabled are, I

understand, supported by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and by the Highland regional council in particular. The amendments would give authorities a desirable discretion, without any obligation being put upon them to incur expenditure. Therefore, I am happy to commend my hon. Friend's amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 14, line 27, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

No. 59, in page 14, line 33, at end insert—
'(9) In subsection (4) above, "the requisite number" has the same meaning in relation to the private road and the land fronting or abutting the road as it has in section 1(6) of this Act in relation to the road and land mentioned in that section. '. — [Mr. Craigen]

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

EMERGENCY WORK IN RELATION TO PRIVATE ROADS

Motion made and Question proposed,  That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Is this clause necessary now in view of the amendments that the Committee has just accepted? Are we now dealing with a supernumerary clause? This clause deals with emergencies but, as I understand it, those emergencies are subsumed by clause 13 as amended. Therefore, would it not be better if the Minister were to say that on Report he will table an amendment to remove the clause from the Bill? I object to the inclusion in Bills of clauses that are no longer necessary.

Mr. Allan Stewart: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) pointed out in the earlier debate, clause 14 refers to emergency work on private roads. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend did not apply to emergency work but gave local authorities a discretion to contribute to the maintenance of certain private roads. This clause, which is related specifically to emergency work, is still necessary. It codifies the existing section 135 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892. Despite my hon. Friend's amendments, I have to advise the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the clause is necessary, although I appreciate the point that he has made.

Mr. Craigen: I should like to confirm that this clause deals with enabling powers that already exist. The purpose of the clause is codification.
I want to ask a question to which the Minister may not have the answer off the top of his head but no doubt it has been discussed, bearing in mind the lengthy discussions that preceded the Bill. How much is it costing roads authorities in Scotland to become involved in emergency work on private roads?

Mr. Allan Stewart: I do not have the figure and I am not certain that it exists. If it exists, I shall let the hon. Member have it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE ROAD TO BECOME PUBLIC ROAD

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 15, line 5, at end insert—
'(c) and provided that it is connected to the public road network'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61 to 65 and 70.

Mr. Craigen: As matters stand, a roads authority might well be obliged to take over culs-de-sac, which might then come under public expenditure even though the spine road had not been completed. This could result in difficulties for a roads authority in carrying out its statutory obligation. We tabled amendment No. 60 to ensure that local authorities would have power to incur expenditure where side roads were definitely to be connected to a spine road that had been adopted.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Amendments 61 to 65 and 70 are very largely for the purposes of clarification. While, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, frontagers or developers could require the local roads authority to adopt a road made up or constructed to an acceptable standard, there has apparently been some degree of misapprehension about that on the part of the authorities. These amendments should leave no doubt in the matter.
Amendment No. 70 relates particularly to the road bond provision in the Bill and enables the regulations which may be made under clause 16 to clarify that the local roads authority will complete an unmade-up road for which a road bond has been deposited and take the completed road on to the list of public roads.
In regard to amendment No. 60, it has long been a statutory requirement in urban areas for roads which have been made up to a satisfactory standard to be taken on to the list of public roads. It is only right and proper that this should be so and that the requirement should apply in all areas. If a road is used by the public when it has been made up to standard at private expense, it is only equitable that it should subsequently be maintained by the local roads authority. In practice, nearly all roads are connected to the public road network either directly or by way of another private road that is open to public traffic. If not, they are unlikely to be defined as roads under the Bill and the question of their adoption will not arise. Where there is a public right of passage over a road and that road meets the required standards, I see no basis for exempting it from the statutory adoption requirements. Therefore, although I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I am unable to commend amendment No. 60 to the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 15, line 6, leave out 'on' and insert 'if'.

No. 62, in page 15, line 6, after `application', insert 'is made'.

No. 63, in page 15, line 7, after `shall', insert
'within 12 months of the application'.

No. 64, in page 15, line 8, at end insert
'Provided that where the requirement mentioned in paragraph (a)  above has been fulfilled by the authority under subsection (4) of the said section 13 or the work specified in the notice has been

carried out or completed by them under subsection (5) thereof no such application shall be required and the authority shall add the road to the said list forthwith.

(1A) If, on completion of a private road constructed in accordance with a construction consent granted under section 20(3) of this Act, the person granted such consent applies, as respects the road, under this subsection to the local roads authority they shall within 12 months of the application add the road to their list of public roads.

(1B) Any dispute in relation to—

(a)subsection (1) above, between the local roads authority and any frontager; or
(b) subsection (1A) above, between that authority and a person applying (or purporting to apply) under that subsection,
shall be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the sheriff on the application of either party. '.

No. 65, in page 15, line 9, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert
'the foregoing provisions of this section'.

No. 66, in page 15, line 12, leave out
'those lands and heritages as'
and insert
'the land fronting or abutting the road as it has'.

No. 67, in page 15, line 13, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about several points that arise from clause 15. First, it frequently happens that a new estate develops on a phased basis, so initial roads can take a fairly hefty pounding from the heavy vehicles going in and out before the entire estate is completed. We do not want a situation where planning consent is necessarily regarded as a passport to the adoption of a road. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that the roads department does not find itself in difficulty over the adoption of roads where planning consent has been given.
It is interesting that the Scottish Development Department had no estimate of the total mileage of roads in private ownership in Scotland. Given that this consolidation measure has reached this legislative stage, I should have thought that some calculation of private road mileage in Scotland would have been ascertained, particularly as a fair amount of private road mileage may well have to be adopted by the roads authorities in the coming years.
The Strathclyde regional council provisional order, which was prepared in November 1983, will in some ways come up against many of the provisions in the codified and innovatory legislation before the Committee this evening. Can the Minister comment on the status of the provisional order? Presumably it will go into cold storage now that the Bill is about to see its way on to the statute book. There is a concern, certainly in Strathclyde region, about the standard of work that might be required to upgrade certain roads and whether some builders will simply consider it sufficient to make a satisfactory road surface.
The case of Portavadie has been drawn to my attention. Will the region find itself in a position where, because frontagers request it, the roads authority has to take over a road system which has no functional use in strategic terms for the region? Will the Minister comment on the anxieties which have been expressed regarding the possibility that Strathclyde region will have to take over 35 miles of new roads at Coulport?
I apologise for having to bring the matter up at this late stage. It was only at lunchtime that I was given a message from the region's chief executive's department on the matter. There is considerable apprehension about additional costs that might well be incurred by Strathclyde region over the implications of certain parts of clause 5. I should be grateful if the Minister would attempt to clarify some of the points that I have mentioned.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I can confirm that this is a codifying clause. It codifies section 134 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the point that he made about authorities having to take over roads of an unsatisfactory standard. The clause relates to private roads which have been brought up to a standard required by, or satisfactory to, the local authority. They would then become public roads.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the nature of things, it is difficult to assess private road mileage because the roads are in private ownership.
On the Strathclyde provisional order, our view is that local statutes should not duplicate matters covered by public statutes. No case has been made for different provisions for Strathclyde region.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the problem of Coulport had been put to him today. It has not been drawn to my attention previously, but I shall look into the point that he has made.

Mr. Home Robertson: I want to return to the constituency point that I raised earlier, to which clause 15 is perhaps more relevant. I should be grateful for an expression of view from the Minister on the rather curious incident of a private road, the proprietors of which would be quite happy to have taken over as a public road, but which has not been brought up to the requisite standard. Lothian regional council has imposed a weight restriction on a bridge which gives access to a road in the neighbourhood of the village of Gifford in East Lothian. That means that all traffic larger than an ordinary motor car has no option but to use the so-called private road. In those circumstances, as a private road has de facto become a public road, the roads authority is under at least a moral obligation to take over responsibility for its maintenance. As a basically more or less responsible person, I am sure the Minister will accept that. Unfortunately, in this instance the regional council has refused to do any such thing.
I have been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who has responsibility for such matters, and I confess to being a little less than satisfied with the replies that I have received. It is the usual story. The implication is that this is a matter for the local roads authority.
We now have an opportunity to clarify the situation. Clause 15 contains a provision that deals with applications for private roads to become public roads. I accept that the clause, as drafted, will not deal with a private road that is genuinely a private road being included in the responsibility of the roads authority. However, I am referring to what was admittedly originally a private road being turned into a public road, because of the action of the roads authority, and the roads authority is not prepared

to accept the logic of its own actions and to take over the road. I hope that the Minister will express a view on that strange set of circumstances.

7 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on a matter about which I understand he is already in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). This is a matter for the roads authority, and the legislation will not be changed by clause 15.
I have taken advice on the final point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) raised in relation to roads at Coulport. I am advised that the proposed roads on Ministry of Defence land will be not roads, but private accesses in terms of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

SECURITY FOR PRIVATE ROAD WORKS RELATING TO HOUSING

Amendments made: No. 68, in clause 16, page 15, line 22, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 69, in clause 16, page 15, line 22, leave out 'front or abut' and insert 'fronts or abuts'.

No. 70, in clause 16, page 16, line 8, leave out 'and' and insert—
`(bb) provide that—

(i) in a case where circumstances mentioned in provisions made under paragraph (c)(vi) below have arisen the local roads authority shall construct the road or, as the case may be, make it up to the standard mentioned in section 15(1) of this Act; and
(ii)subsection (2) of section 19 of this Act shall apply to a road so constructed or made up as that subsection applies to a road constructed under subsection (1) of that section; and. —[Mr.Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed,  That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: The clause is an important one, and I have some concerns about it. The clause should stop what some of my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), have described. If an estate is built with roads, and the contractor does not bring those roads up to the correct standard but walks away from the building site, having sold all the houses, the owners of the houses are left with the roads not properly maintained. Where a contractor proposes to build, the clause allows, but does not make it mandatory upon, the Secretary of State to introduce regulations stating that what is commonly called a road bond must be put down, by which certain moneys are given to the local authority before planning permission is agreed. Such a measure means that, if a contractor fails to build a proper road, the local authority will use the money to do the job itself. If the contractor does the job himself, the local authority will presumably reimburse the sum of money that he has paid.
In view of the cases that have been cited, and the points that have been made by my hon. Friends and by other Members, will the Minister consider making this mandatory? It is obvious that it cannot be done in every


case. Indeed, I noticed an earlier example of alteration to an existing building which is not a private dwellinghouse for use as a private dwellinghouse. If an old barn were standing in a field, and somebody bought it and made it into a house, I do not think that one could insist upon a bond being put down to make the road to that barn into a public road. However, where a number of houses are being built by a recognised building contractor for commercial purposes, it should be mandatory upon him to put down a bond to ensure that the road can be built if he fails to do the job. The solution that springs to mind is that in clause 16(2) the word "may" should be deleted and the word "shall" inserted, but that may be too harsh. We must ensure that the kind of circumstances that have been described do not arise again.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The Committee will have a great deal of sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. The purpose of the clause is to avoid the problems to which he has referred, and to which a number of hon. Members referred on Second Reading.
The provision to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations to require what are called road bonds has been widely welcomed. We are now undertaking consultations with the local authorities, the building developers and others involved on the precise content of the regulations. When the regulations come before the House, I hope that they will meet the various points of concern about the present situation that have been expressed by a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Craigen: I did not want to re-invent the wheel in this matter, which is why I did not intervene earlier. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is helpful. I made the point on Second Reading that we welcome the introduction of these road bonds. Indeed in Strathclyde this has already been operating on a voluntary basis. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that he will bring in the regulations after consultation, and that this is merely a matter of time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

REQUIREMENT OF CONSENT FOR NEW ROADS BUILT OTHER THAN BY ROADS AUTHORITY

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 18, line 17, after 'intimated', insert 'by the applicant'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 74.

Mr. Stewart: These are technical and drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 72, in clause 20, page 18, line 18, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.— [Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 18, line 38, leave out 'less' and insert 'more'.
I move the amendment more as a probe because clause 20(4) deals with construction consents and states that all work shall be completed within a period
of not less than three years.
A number of people whom I consulted think that this should read "not more than three years." This appears to be clarified by clause 20(6)(b). I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter because it could be remedied now.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I confirm that the clause as drafted ensures that no construction consent can be imposed with a time limit of less than three years. That period is taken from the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, and subsection (6) allows for an appeal to the sheriff against any conditions other than a condition of time less than three years, which is illegal in terms of the subsection.
The amendment would impose a maximum time limit of three years for construction of a road by a person other than a roads authority. Because the amendment would impose no minimum time limit, unreasonable conditions for completion of a road could be imposed without any appeal. I considered the amendment carefully because I realised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) was questioning the drafting of the clause. I hope that the explanation satisfies him.

Mr. Craigen: I am grateful for that clarification. Does the Minister think that three years is a reasonable period, or is it too long?

Mr. Stewart: There can always be different views on such matters. I hesitate to quote precedent, but that period is taken from the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, and experience suggests that it is satisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 19, line 9. after `date', insert
'of the intimation to him'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Foulkes: Like all those present, I have been captivated by the discussion so far. I intervene briefly now only because I am intrigued by clauses 20 and 21. As hon. Members will know only too well, I am not in any way an expert on roads or their construction.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend cannot drive on them either.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is getting close to seeing a disturbance in the Chamber, which would be most unfortunate. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to exactly who is going round building roads without any authority in Scotland. I travel around Scotland a lot, although, as has been pointed out, not as much as I used to do. Come September I shall no doubt be travelling a little more. I have not seen people illegally building roads in the middle of the night, or at any other time. It is fascinating that clause 20 should specify all that great procedure for those who have a strange longing to build roads.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many people have been taken to court for building roads illegally. Has it been a growing offence in the past five years? Has the Minister lost control over it? Are these provisions being introduced because there is a rash of illegal road building in Scotland?

Mr. Craigen: I believe that the legislation brings us into line with England, so perhaps there is a precedent there.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. These things do spread across the border. Things get out of hand. They start off in England and move up to Scotland. It started with glue sniffing and it now seems to be illegal road building. I am glad that the Minister and the Government are putting a stop to that illegal road building. To be fully aware of the position, we need to know how much illegal road building has been going on, and who has been doing it. I ask the Minister to name the guilty men.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I listened, as always, with great care to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). There is a genuine point to clause 20—that it is possible for building developers to provide roads on housing estates that are of a very low standard, which lands purchasers with a problem. Therefore, the clause is necessary, for it requires the consent of the local roads authority to be obtained for the construction of any new road by someone other than a roads authority. Apart from the roads authority, those who build new roads are mostly developers of new housing estates.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the o Minister saying that housing contractors are going round building roads without permission? I am now making a serious point, because that would seem to be rather strange.

Mr. Stewart: This clause and clause 21 would prevent that from happening. The problem is not building roads completely without permission, but building roads that are not up to the proper standard. That is why the roads authority's consent is required in the first instance.

Mr. Maxton: I too am rather fascinated by the clause, although I am perhaps slightly more serious than my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Of course, the local authority gives someone permission to build a road. I notice that in clause 22, the local roads authority has the right to
stop up or temporarily close any new road which another person … has constructed—(a) without construction consent".
What will happen if the Ministry of Defence starts to build new roads within the Coulport area as part of the extension of the Trident programme? It will have to do that. Anyone who knows anything about the programme will accept that that is so. Strathclyde regional council, the local roads authority, is opposed to the extension of Coulport and the bringing in of Trident. If the local roads authority says that it will not give the Ministry of Defence construction consent, what will happen? If the Ministry of Defence then goes ahead and builds those reads, can we assume that, under clause 22, Strathclyde regional council can send in its workmen to stop them up and so ensure that there is no access to them?
I hope that my interpretation of the clause is correct, and that Strathclyde regional council will have the ability to say that it does not want Trident or the development of Coulport. If these clauses mean that it can use its powers to ensure that Trident does not come to the Clyde or the west of Scotland, I give them my wholehearted support.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) asked what would happen if the

local authority refused an application for construction consent under clause 20. Subsection (6) sets out the procedure by which an applicant can
appeal to the Secretary of State in accordance with the procedure prescribed by any regulations under subsection (7)".

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

OFFENCES IN RELATION TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Home Robertson: I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had to say about this rash of illegal road building which the Government apparently anticipate. I have studied schedule 7, which lists the penalties to be imposed for the offences listed in the Bill. It is a bit confusing, and we could do with some clarification from the Minister. Clause 21 explains that
Any person (other than a roads authority)—
(a) who constructs a new road … commits an offence, which shall be triable either summarily or on indictment.
Schedule 7 provides that the penalty will not be set at a particular level, whereas other offences have fines set at different levels. It states
On summary conviction, the statutory maximum; and on conviction on indictment a fine.
Presumably that means an unlimited fine. Why should the heinous crime of building a road illegally be subject to the imposition of an unlimited fine, when the rather more dangerous offences listed in the Bill can get away with fines of less than £1,000? What is the Minister doing?

Mr. James Wallace: The point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is identical to the point that I wished to make. It shows that two great minds can think alike. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's conversion to sitting on the alliance Bench is most welcome.
Had the hon. Gentleman looked at clause 124, he would have found that the statutory maximum has the definition given in section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. The Minister may have the advantage of having a copy of that Act with him, so he may be able to tell us what that means. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for East Lothian that an unlimited fine would appear to be rather harsh. Will the Minister consider inserting a maximum? No doubt he will make the punishment fit the crime. An open-ended arrangement is contrary to many other statutory provisions which provide a maximum.

Mr. Maxton: Just to prove that this Bench is not in unanimity, I am not sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). We are talking, not about individuals, but about large public bodies, especially builders, some of whom the Opposition hold in high contempt.

Mr. Home Robertson: Name them.

Mr. Maxton: I shall certainly name one—it is the Barrett building company, for which many of us have little regard. We would have to impose a maximum fine of, say,


£100,000 to make it worthwhile. It is better that it is left open. The courts can then decide the appropriate level of fine. If anything is to be imposed, it should be a minimum, not a maximum.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of, while not agreeing with every nuance of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, basically agreeing with his central point, which is that because of the potentially large development benefits that might be involved it is important that, in appropriate cases, the courts should be able to impose a severe fine. That is why the offences are made triable either summarily or on indictment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

ALTERATION OF LEVELS OF PUBLIC ROADS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister explain why this clause has been included in the Bill? What is so different about altering the level of the road as not to make it part and parcel of the powers of local authorities over the building and maintenance of roads?

Mr. Allan Stewart: Under the remainder of the Bill, local authorities do not have the specific power of clause 23, which enables them to
raise or lower or otherwise alter … the level of a public road.
The clause codifies section 6(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

PROVISION OF FOOTWAYS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I want to make a comprison between clauses 24 and 25. We are talking about a group of people who must be considered by us as legislators when we are debating the whole question of traffic and roads. I refer to the pedestrian—the person who walks. I do not walk frequently. Most hon. Members are car owners and drivers. We tend to concentrate on the concerns of drivers —as I did when I raised the condition of the A74. I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has done the same.
Most of us are concerned about the safety of two groups — the children at school, or below school age, who must use the roads and footpaths, and, at the other end of the scale, the elderly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cunmock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is especially interested in the elderly, at both a personal and political level.

Mr. David Marshall: And the disabled.

Mr. Maxton: I agree. We are concerned about those who, through age or physical disabilities, are not car drivers and must use the roads as pedestrians. We must ensure their safety. Quite rightly, clause 24 states:

A roads authority shall provide, wherever it appears to them necessary or desirable for the safety or convenience of pedestrians so to do, proper and sufficient footways for public roads".
Clause 25 uses the word "may" not "shall". I tabled an amendment—unfortunately it was not selected—to alter the word "may" to "shall". Local authorities should have an obligation to consider the matter carefully.
I live in Hamilton, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I apologise to him for raising a local point concerned with his constituency. Hamilton grammar school is built on a split site, with buildings on either side of a busy main road. There have been several accidents—one fatal—where children have been knocked down. It would be sensible to place an obligation on a local authority to provide a footbridge or underpath to ensure the safe travel of the children. I am sure that my hon. Friends could think of many other examples.
I regret that the clause does not cover other forms of crossing for pedestrians, such as pedestrian phasing at traffic light junctions, pedestrian crossings and pedestrian lights. I agree that they are not directly concentrated on these clauses, but these clauses are about safety. There is little point in ensuring that there are proper footpaths on the side of the road if one cannot ensure that people can cross over those roads in safety as well, and the clauses do not cover the problem.
7.30 pm
I know that many of us—I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain them—are not at all sure what criteria the Secretary of State has for giving permission to local authorities for the establishment of pedestrian crossings, pedestrian lights or pedestrian phasing at junction lights. In my constituency, the junction. of Langside drive and Merrylee road is a busy one. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knows it well. There are traffic lights at the junction, and on several occasions the Newlands community council and the local residents have asked me whether I could get a pedestrian phase put into the lights. I have written to Strathclyde regional council road department and asked it to put a pedestrian phase into the lights, but this has been turned down.
The reason given is that it does not meet the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State. I am told that the Secretary of State's criteria are based almost entirely on the flow of traffic and the number of vehicles. The problem with that crossing is that, literally five houses up from it, there is an old folks' home, Scott house, about which the Munster may know, on Langside drive. The old people who use that crossing find it difficult to get across the road without the pedestrian phase in the lights.
When the Minister winds up the debate, will he give us an explanation of the criteria for these lights and for pedestrian crossings and will he take on board my point that perhaps the criteria should include other things than the flow of traffic and the number of cars using the road? We know that often censuses are taken at the oddest time of the day when there is little traffic, but they should also take into account the number of pedestrians who might use the crossing and the age and physical ability of such people. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at these matters.
All of us have at some time had representations made to us about crossings, by one authority or another. I am


sure that all of us could make speeches about this matter if we so wished. I have other examples, but I do not intend to stretch your patience, Mr. Dean, by adding them up and putting them all on record. I merely hope that the Minister will take this point on board and note that safety is not just about providing footpaths or about having the ability to provide subways and bridges, but is about providing other means of crossing for pedestrians and making sure that the criteria for those are properly laid down by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Home Robertson: I wish to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about pedestrian crossings. I take it that this is the nearest point in the Bill at which we can refer to pedestrian crossings, because presumably they fit the description of a footpath. I know that my hon. Friend tabled an amendment that has not been selected. However, the general point is relevant. I hope that the Minister will say something about the problems relating to the provision of pedestrian crossings.
All of us in all our constituencies must have had correspondence with Ministers from time to time about the difficulty of persuading the Scottish Development Department to provide pedestrian crossings. We are supposed to be talking about footways, but footways on opposite sides of the road are of limited value if there is an uninterrupted flow of fast-moving traffic and people have to get from one footway to the next.
I invite the Minister to say something about the criteria applied by the Department to the provision of pedestrian crossings. I have correspondence in a file here—do not worry, I shall not go through it all—dating back to 1976, two years before I came to the House. My predecessor, John Mackintosh, had been in correspondence with the Scottish Office about the need for a pedestrian crossing across the A 1 in the village of Macmerry in East Lothian. I went on with this correspondence. People came from the Scottish Office to measure the traffic flows and sent reports, but, in the end, said that it did not meet the criteria.
As time went on, I came to the conclusion that the only thing that would meet the criteria would be blood on that road. I am happy to say that there has not been a serious accident. Indeed, the problem has been overtaken by events, because shortly the village will be bypassed. Therefore, the Minister will be relieved to hear that I am no longer concerned about that point. However, I hope that he will say something about these wretched critieria, because my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have been involved in similar, protracted and avoidable correspondence. If there is an obvious need for a pedestrian crossing, a reasonable Government Department, a reasonable Minister and reasonable criteria should make it possible for such a pedestrian crossing to be provided. Why is that not happening now, and why is it so difficult?

Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for raising this matter, although, for a moment, I thought that I was on the Cathcart circle. He and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) have gone a wee bit wider than the clause we are discussing. However, I am glad that they have raised this matter.
I thought it unfortunate that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart was not selected. I have a vested interest because Lambhill community council is in my constituency. I assure my hon. Friends that that excellent community council has for many years been concerned about safety conditions on certain stretches of the Balmore road.
I am mindful of the points that my hon. Friends have raised about the criteria that are laid down. I assure the Committee that, as that particular stretch of the Balmore road has an old folks' home and there is a disproportionately high percentage of elderly people in the community, these are important matters, and they tend to generate a considerable amount of correspondence and an innumerable number of public meetings. Perhaps the Minister will take into account that we could press this matter a little more on Report. I hope that he will show a little flexibility in his remarks.

Mr. Allan Stewart: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has said, this clause is about the provision of footways, and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) have raised matters relating to crossings and lights. These matters are dealt with not in the Bill but in road traffic regulations. However, I shall respond in general terms to the points that the hon. Gentlemen have made.
The criteria are set out in a circular, but I can confirm that vehicle flows are not the only factors taken into account. Other factors considered are the numbers of pedestrians and the road accident record. There is no purpose in providing crossings that are hardly ever used as drivers might increasingly ignore them. That in itself would be dangerous. The criteria are set out in a circular. If hon. Members wish to read it, I am sure that copies can be made available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

FENCES ETC. TO SAFEGUARD PERSONS USING PUBLIC ROADS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Hector Monro: The clause begins by providing:
The roads authority may … provide … barriers as they think necessary".
The Dumfries and Galloway regional council and the roads authority have been pressing year by year, with the strongest support from myself, for the erection of central reservation barriers on the A74. The Bill gives authority for such barriers to be erected but the Scottish Development Department steadfastly says no. I know that it will trot out the old argument about cost but the issue is that of safety and not cost. I am sure that the Department knows that the majority of serious accidents on the A74 result from vehicles crossing from one carriageway to another. The most serious accident, which was the subject of a private notice question a few years ago, involved the death of 10 people. That was the result of a vehicle crossing from one carriageway to another.
I appreciate that over the years there has been a steady extension of the length of road that has central reservation


barriers, but I find it hard to accept the arguments presented by my hon. Friend to the effect that it is much safer for a vehicle to cross form one carriageway to another rather than to bounce into the central barrier and to return to its own flow of traffic. That argument is not borne out from the results of accidents on the A74. Why is it that the Bill gives an authority the power to erect a barrier when the Scottish Development Department vetoes such provision?

Mr. Allan Stewart: Barriers can lead to more accidents rather than fewer. Much depends on traffic flows and the speed of traffic. The circumstances of a particular stretch of road have to be considered. As my hon. Friend recognises, central barriers have been provided on parts of the A74. I can assure him that they are provided and will be provided where they will make a positive contribution to safety. We take these matters extremely seriously. In some circumstances barriers can lead to more accidents.

Sir Hector Monro: When my hon. Friend talks about speed, I take it that he means increasing speed. It was accepted recently that heavy lorries should be able to travel at 50 mph and not 40 mph. Is that not an additional reason for the provision of central reservation barriers?

Mr. Stewart: That is an additional factor and we shall need to assess the results of changes in speed limits to ascertain whether central barriers are sensible. I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep these matters under review.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member of Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has raised a constituency issue but it is one that has general interest. Like the majority of Scottish Members, I drive on occasion on the A74 which has a rather unfair reputation as a dangerous road. Statistics do not always justify the headlines about the "killer road" with which we are all familiar. I have listened to the brief exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister and it is clear that the Government are saying that a subjective judgment must be applied to any given stretch of road to ascertain whether a central barrier is a safety device or an added hazard. They have in mind the danger of a vehicle hitting the central barrier and bouncing back and creating more mayhem in the lane in which it was travelling rather than if it had crossed over the road.
I am not enough of an expert on the technicalities of road traffic management to pass judgment on when the Government's philosophy is sound and when it is not. It would be of some interest to the Committee if the Minister were to explain to what extent he thinks that further central barriers could be erected on the A74. We know that a good deal of the road has been provided with a central barrier. The local Member, perhaps following his local interest, is saying understandably that more could be done and the Minister is saying that it is a matter of judgment. The Minister's judgment might be that we should have more central barriers but we cannot afford them. Alternatively, he might be saying that we have all the central barriers that we need and that the stretches of road that are not covered by them should be left uncovered because of the merits of the Department's argument on road safety. I am not clear which argument the Minister is advancing.
When moneys are available, does he accept that a considerable additional mileage along the A74 will be

covered by central barriers? It would be useful to know what development he expects to take place when there is not a shortage of cash.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The need for central barriers is kept under review in the light of changing developments. I did not wish to imply that decisions are made on subjective criteria when I set out the major criteria that are taken into account. Decisions are taken after the application of a mathematical formula which has been developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. There is no question of decisions being taken other than on the basis of a full and objective statistical analysis.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO FENCES

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 21, line 12, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.

No. 77, in page 21, line 14, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

WORKS FOR PROTECTING ROADS AGAINST HAZARDS OF NATURE

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 21, line 34, after `road', insert 'or proposed public road'. — [Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

DRAINAGE OF ROADS

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 21, line 38, after `road', insert 'or proposed public road'.

No. 80, in page 21, line 40, leave out 'the road' and insert 'it'.

No. 81, in page 21, line 41, leave out 'the road' and insert 'it'.

No. 82, in page 22, line 1, leave out 'the road' and insert 'it'.

No. 83, in page 22, line 4, leave out 'the road' and insert 'it'.

No. 84, in page 22, line 6, leave out 'the road' and insert 'it'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

CONTRIBUTIONS TO DRAINAGE WORKS AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 23, line 5, after 'road', insert 'or proposed public road'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

SNOW GATES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: The Highland regional council becomes rather hot under the collar on the issue of snow gates. This is a new provision that was debated in another place. There is specific power for the roads authority to provide snow gates and to enable the police to close the gates when necessary. The region wanted to ensure that there would be adequate consultation between the police authority and the roads authority. Has the Under-Secretary had any further thoughts on the matter since Lord Gray of Contin dealt with it in another place?

Mr. Allan Stewart: Snow gates are a matter of considerable concern, particularly in the Highland region. They have been provided in Scotland, but the statutory authority for their provision is not clear. The basic purpose of the clause is to make it clear.
The hon. Gentleman referred to consultation. I hope that he will accept that that is an operational matter. Clearly it would be sensible for the regional authority and the police to maintain regular contact on the matter, but it would not be reasonable to expect the driver of the snowplough to try to contact the roads authority before deciding whether to close a snow gate, in the conditions in which he is likely to be working. This is a matter for common sense on the part of the police and the roads authority.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

CLEARANCE OF SNOW AND ICE

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: The clearance of snow and ice is one of the subjects to which one's attention is constantly drawn. Perhaps it is not a subject that is imbued with the full dignity of Parliament. It may sound somewhat trivial. However, it is something that affects the quality of life in the winter months in almost every constituency. If I were asked to list the subjects about which my constituents complain to me, the gritting of the streets in severe weather would probably appear among the top half-dozen items. together with blocked drains, leaking roofs and dogs fouling the pavements—matters which understandably irritate a large number of people every day.
I remember, though somewhat vaguely, the Committee stage of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. The Minister will remember it too. A great deal of debate arose in Committee from the recommendations of the Stodart committee. I understand that the Government's intention is that the clearing of snow and the gritting of roads shall be left firmly in the hands of regional councils. I understand that section 25 of the 1982 Act, read in conjunction with this clause, will make that clear. The Minister may fairly ask why I am making the point if the position is perfectly clear. However, his notes on clauses will remind him that Stodart left the gate open—to use a felicitous phrase—by saying that:
Regional councils should be responsible for clearing snow from roads and for gritting but district councils should regard it as an obligation to give positive assistance".

The notes on clauses state that:
The latter part of the recommendation is not appropriate for legislation.
They sweep on to consider the more positive duty placed on the regional council. Can the Minister say a word or two about the part to be played by the district council? I do not wish to be difficult, but I am not clear what the district councils are expected to do in terms of carrying out their obligation to give positive assistance. The obligation may be totally negative—an obligation not to get in the way. If that is so, they will be delighted to shoulder it. It may be merely an obligation to phone the regional council and complain that it is not gritting the roads with sufficient energy, efficiency and thoroughness.
Is the recommendation that there should be positive assistance being adopted by the Government, although not to be enshrined in the legislation because of the difficulties of definition and the danger of retaining in statutory form the ambiguity that Stodart was trying to abolish? The phrasing in Stodart and in the notes on clauses suggests that there should be some positive continuing involvement by the district council in this controversial area of local government activity. If that is so—I accept that it would be only obiter dicta from the Minister and not a legislative obligation—the district council's duty should be defined and explained.
We should be given some further information—the thoughts of the Minister—on the matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister's view about what we can expect from the district councils, particularly those councils which listen to the Scottish Office—a declining number these days, for reasons which the Minister understands although he refuses to do anything about them. What does the Minister expect in terms of the Stodart recommendations and the non-statutory positive obligation which lives on in the notes on clauses if not in the Bill?

8 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, clause 33 implements the prime element of the recommendations of the Stodart committee. The background was the apparent confusion about responsibility for snow clearing between the regions, which had a common law duty, and the districts, which had powers and duties to sweep and cleanse the streets. The Bill makes it clear that it is the regional councils that will be responsible for clearing snow from the roads and for gritting.
The hon. Member referred to the district councils' obligation to give positive assistance, as set out by Stodart. One of the reasons why legislation would not be appropriate is that statutory provision already exists in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. In section 56 of that Act there is provision for co-operation between authorities. There, is, therefore, no need to give the district councils a statutory obligation.
I hesitate to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to set out my ministerial thoughts on the role of district councils in this matter, but it is a matter on which the district authorities can consult with the regional authorities. It is not a matter on which we propose to dictate to them.

Mr. Wallace: Yet again, in clause 33, Parliament is giving the local authorities a statutory duty. From some of the cases that I dealt with at the Bar involving accidents in which people slipped on snow and ice, I recall that when


the local authorities had a duty at common law they had a possible defence along the lines that they could grit or take other steps only so far as resources, including financial resources, permitted. As soon as the bad weather comes upon us again, local authorities will warn us that, because of cuts in the amount of money available to them, they will not be able to do as much gritting on roads and pavements as in the past.
Will clause 33 make any difference to the duty of local authorities? Will they be allowed to plead constraints on finance, or do the Government — having imposed a statutory duty on the local authority—intend to make the necessary finance available to them?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has produced an extremely interesting line of argument which could delay us for a long time if we were so minded. However, I recognise that an enormous amount of business has yet to be covered, so I shall ask the Minister two brief questions.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, anyone who has done a little jobbing legal practice in Scotland is familiar with the cracked pavement case and the probing letter to the roads authority. Presumably the Bill will not greatly alter those circumstances, as responsibility for cleaning the roads will remain with the regional authority and any action will fall to be raised against it.
Clause 33 is drafted in terms of the roads authority and
the safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles over public roads.
Does that refer to the footpath or pavement as well? I see that nods, winks, nudges and inspiration from afar have struck the Minister. I think that I can, with remarkable perception, anticipate the answer that I am about to be given. I congratulate those who, according to the etiquette of the House, do not exist on having got over the problem of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland having rebelled against his lowly position of servitude and deserted his post as Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Having established to my satisfaction that the duty of the regional council to clear snow and to grit extends to pavements, I have only one other comment to make. I am disappointed that the Minister does not want to speculate on what might constitute positive assistance from the district council. I am sure that, in Scotland, many Conservative councillors would welcome such guidance and the thoughts of the Minister on the matter. I can envisage councillor Brian Meek of Lothian region, whose devotion to the Government's cause has been so openly sported in the past few weeks, being extremely disappointed that he has no particular instructions on this matter. I am genuinely puzzled. I do not see what the positive assistance could be. Is it the lending of equipment? Is it the taking over by arrangement? If the Minister cannot help, I suppose that I must retreat from the field of battle in baffled disappointment.

Mr. Allan Stewart: First, there is a general statutory provision that enables district councils to co-operate, if they so wish, in any way that seems sensible to them. Secondly, I confirm that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is right about the provision extending to footways and pavements.
In regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), there is no change in the position of a roads authority. The Bill confers on it a duty to

take such steps as they consider reasonable to prevent snow and ice endangering the safe passage of pedestrians and vehicles over public roads.
That is the obligation that roads authorities already have.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

PROVISION OF LIGHTING BY ROADS AUTHORITIES)

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 23, line 33, at end insert—
'(1) In subsection (1) above, the reference to roads, or proposed roads, which will be maintainable by the local roads authority does not include a reference to—

(a) an existing road which is a prospective public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950;
(b) a new road in course of construction, or to be constructed, other than by or on behalf of the authority; or
(c) a road which would be maintainable by them only if application were made to them under section 15(1) of this Act.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment No. 87, in page 23, line 34, leave out `may' and insert 'shall'.
Amendment No. 88, in page 23, line 36, at end insert
'and which in his opinion ought to be lit'.
Government Amendment No. 90.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Perhaps I might catch your eye later, Mr. Dean, to respond to points that are made in respect of amendments Nos. 87 and 88. Amendments Nos. 86 and 90 are intended to remove any conflict between clauses 13 and 20, which enable a local roads authority to require lighting to be installed in a private road or new road before adding the road to the list, and clause 34, which confers a duty on the local roads authority to provide road lighting on roads that will be maintainable by it. Essentially, the amendments clarify the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made:
No. 89, in page 23, line 38, leave out 'private road' and insert 'road, or proposed road,'.
No. 90, in page 23, line 39, at end insert
`and as regards which no duty is imposed on them by subsection
(1) above.'.
No. 91, in page 23, line 41, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert `land'.
No. 92, in page 23, line 44, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.——[Mr. Allan Stewart.]
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the important subject of lighting on our roads. This is one of the few opportunities that, we have to discuss it and the benefits to the community that would arise from a considerably increased programme of street lighting provision. The community would benefit from substantial savings in terms of road safety, lives saved and serious injuries prevented. There would also be massive reductions in crime, especially street crime. I should have thought that that would be attractive to Conservative Members, small though their number is today.
I am interested in lighting, for several reasons. One is that I have a long-standing interest in road safety. I think that most right hon. and hon. Members know that. Some are considerably pained by my long-standing interest in road safety, but my interest in seat belts perhaps kept me alive for the dubious benefit of the House and the country and enabled me to stand here tonight. I also have a constituency interest in the subject. Recently, with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I wrote a pamphlet called "Light up the Roads", which was published by the Lighting Industry Federation. I recommend it to hon. Members. Someone promoted it by saying, "Enjoy a good read." In case hon. Members have not read it, I shall précis its contents in the next few minutes.
First, however, I shall quote the evidence given by the Department of Transport to the Select Committee on Transport, which is presently considering road safety. In March, 1983 the Department of Transport submitted evidence on street lighting and said:
The accident rate during the hours of darkness is worse than in daylight … In general the accident rate in relation to distance travelled during the hours of darkness is nearly double that for the hours of daylight. Accidents at night are also generally more likely to produce fatalities and severe personal injuries".
Although road safety concerns many people, we tend to underestimate the carnage that occurs on our roads. Despite the undoubted improvement resulting from the mandatory use of seat belts in cars in the past year, nearly 20 people are still killed every day. Moreover, a substantially greater number are seriously injured, maimed, mutilated or crippled for the rest of their lives.
The country suffers the human pain and agony associated with road accidents and considerable financial loss. The Department of Transport estimates that each fatal accident costs the nation £160,000 in hospitalisation costs, police costs, road traffic costs and in the cost of losing a productive individual from the community. With the cumulative number of fatalities on the roads, there is clearly a substantial cost to the community as a whole.
If all these accidents were purely accidents—random events which were not preventable—that would be a meaningless statistic, but they are not. Accidents are preventable, some at inordinate cost which the community would not consider reasonable to bear, while others can be prevented at a minimal cost to personal liberty. The compulsory wearing of seat belts was one means by which we reduced the number of fatal accidents and substantially reduced the number of serious injuries at the cost of a small price to the personal liberty of people who are now obliged to wear seat belts.
We are considering in this clause an area in which substantially greater benefits could accrue to the community by small items of public expenditure. If there were more expenditure on street lighting—if we were willing as a nation to invest more in that—there would be a reduction in the number of road accidents. That is one of the most important aspects of the subject, but it is not the only one, because similar evidence by the Department of Transport to the Select Committee last year made it clear that the interaction of lighting and crime was an important consideration, and I shall come to the question of how street crime would be reduced if there were substantially greater street lighting.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is my Member of Parliament, will be interested to hear the case that I am putting forward, and I look forward to reading in the Stirling Observer his strong support for massive public investment in street lighting, and to the reduction in crime that would arise from it.
The first leg of the argument for an increased programme of street lighting is in relation to road accidents. To use the example of motorways—because they come directly under the funding of central Government and not local authorities—that is an area where an impact could be made immediately by the Minister. The Department of Transport has estimated that to light all of the existing unlit miles of motorway in Britain would cost, at the least, £90 million and, at the most, £105 million. I remind Conservative Members that that is even less than the price of one frigate for the Royal Navy, the sort of expenditure for which they cheerfully voted last night, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has a vested interest in as many frigates as possible being built by Yarrow Shipbuilders.
It has been authoritatively estimated that the cost of power and maintenance — the running costs of that additional lighting of the motorways — would be between £5·5 million and £9 million a year. I believe that most people who drive on motorways would regard that as a small cost compared with what they might have expected it to be, remembering that it must be measured against the potential benefits of that expenditure.
I represent in Hamilton constituency a slice of the M74. Some of it is lit—indeed, some of it is almost floodlit—at intersections, while other parts of it are completely unlit. If one drives on the M74—as is the case on any part of the motorway system—motoring from one of the ultra-lit intersections on the road to an unlit section, especially in rain, the danger is immediate and is obvious to any driver. It is like driving into a tunnel without the lights being on, and there is little doubt that there is a correlation between the dangers and the fatalities that are a consequence. Therefore, for a small outlay, each motorway mile in Britain could be inexpensively lit and the nation would be wealthier, not only in terms of the people who would not be killed, but in terms of the consequent reduction in cost to the community.
The evidence of the Department of Transport to the Select Committee was clear about studies conducted into the effects of increased lighting. It said:
Of 12 motorway and freeway studies, five showed that lighting could be effective in reducing night accidents. In five of these studies, casualty accidents reduced by up to 60 per cent.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Has the hon. Gentleman discovered, in carrying out his researches, whether there is any evidence that the pattern with street lighting would be similar to that observed with seat belts; that initially there is a reduction in the number of accidents, but because people feel safer and more confident they drive faster and more recklessly and the accident rate goes up? We might light all the motorways and the accident rate might go down for a while, but would we find people driving faster, perhaps late at night in the wet, and that, because of their increased confidence, the number of accidents might, in the long run, increase?

Mr. Robertson: That argument has no base whatever. It was put forward when we were discussing seat belts. It was said that the accident rate would go up eventually because people would feel safer and more secure and would, as a result, drive more recklessly. The argument that was put forward to that effect, by a geographer, proved manifestly baseless and the statistics were found to be groundless. On a free vote, the House made its decision based on strong arguments that were put to hon. Members, and that happened before the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) arrived here.
If the rules of order permitted me to expand on the arguments for compulsory seat belt wearing and the weakness of the type of argument that the hon. Gentleman has adduced, I could demonstrate more than adequately that there is no reliable, sensible evidence to suggest that there is any force in the hon. Gentleman's argument in any of the countries where there has been substantial experience of compulsory seat belt wearing. Any theory that might be advanced against the wearing of seat belts would be similarly inapplicable to the case that I am discussing for increased lighting.
Serious research has been done over lengthy periods, and it is clear that the additional safety from better lit highways is permanent and productive, and I shall detail more of the evidence from sources which, I am sure, will be completely persuasive to the House. I speak in the sure and certain hope that at the end of my speech the Minister will announce immediate public investment in street lighting. I have that faith because, for the first time in a long time, I am making an uncontroversial speech to the Minister, who can only respond with favour to me.
The problem with street lighting, as is amply illustrated by the nature of this debate, is that it is too often taken for granted. We assume that street lighting has always been there, and therefore its benefits are largely ignored. We may not be able to imagine our towns and cities without street lighting, but it makes a major contribution to our lives.
The Department of Transport more than adequately laid out in its evidence to the Select Committee details of the research that has been done, and I understand that the Select Committee is now considering the matter. Its evidence was very persuasive indeed. It quoted the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage, which surveyed 30 studies in 244 urban sites, including more than 200 sites in the United Kingdom where no or poor lighting was replaced by good traffic route lighting. It concluded that
pedestrian casualties are reduced by between 45 and 57 per cent. and other road user casualties … by between 14 and 21 per cent.… fatal accidents are reduced by between 48 and 65 per cent. and serious injuries reduced by between 24 and 30 per cent … all accidents to all road users are reduced by between 14 and 53 per cent.
Clearly, where there is subjectivity about the quality of light before and after, it makes it difficult to carry out detailed research, but considerable benefits were shown in many of the studies in which attempts were made at objectivity. The Department of Transport said:
As most of these studies examined were of a large scale and had reasonable experimental design, their results can be accepted with some confidence.
Other studies have been carried out showing substantial reductions in the accident rate. The most famous of all was the study by Barbara Sabey and H. D. Johnson, which was published as a Transport and Road Research Laboratory

report in 1973. It showed the relationship between night-time accidents and street lighting. They said that their results demonstrated that money was not saved by reducing street lighting. Savings were involved in the reduction in darkness accidents, achieved by improving lighting on trunk roads, and these savings were substantial when measured against the cost of installing new lighting. They said in conclusion that
the saving in costs of accidents on roads where a 70 mph speed limit applied was about three times the annual cost of the lighting.
That statistic should appeal to those who are conscious of the need to make savings in public expenditure
One of the most interesting items of research, which I feel sure will appeal to Conservative Members, was carried out between November 1973 and March 1974, the previous period in which we experienced the effects of a miners' strike. We may well look carefully at the experience of that time in relation to road accidents as well as the effects of crime. We may be coming up to a similar period. During that control period the GLC road safety unit looked at the consequences on road accidents of the 10 to 15 per cent. cut in lighting brought in by Government diktat in a perhaps futile attempt to save energy during the electricity cuts. During that short period, in which extensive researches were carried out, significant increases in accidents occurred. They could not possibly have occurred due to any other external factor. The GLC estimated that
had the trends observed during the lighting cuts been operative throughout 1973 there would have been over 900 extra pedestrian accidents.
It pointed out that the greatest percentage increases in darkness accidents are in the fatal category. That research showed conclusively that where street lighting was reduced there was an increase in accidents.
The results of the Sabey and Johnson study showed that increased lighting reduced the number of accidents. Clearly it would reduce expenditure and the substantial cost to the community of night-time road accidents if we improved our road lighting programme. It is estimated that night-time road accidents probably cost this country more than £700 million a year, so any reduction in that cost is a reduction in the total cost to the community.
I shall deal next with the argument for reducing crime. That matter does not come instantly to the minds of Conservative Members, who tend to think in terms of short, sharp treatments, in institutions. Sometimes, from their wilder dreams, they talk about bringing back hanging and the birch and making sentences longer in an attempt to reduce the high level of crime in the past few years.
That idea is not confined to those of us on the Left who advocate increased public expenditure. Indeed, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago made his political reputation on the idea of lighting up the streets. He embarked upon a huge programme of street lighting in Chicago. Street crime has always been and is still a problem in American cities. The level of street crime was substantially affected by increased lighting.
It is self-evident that better lighting in the streets makes the possibilities and the temptations of crime much less. The incidence of mugging, attacks, thefts and even of burglary is reduced by better lighting, which makes crime or its possibility much more public.
If we invested more money in lighting, there is adequate research to suggest that we would reduce the amount of street crime as a consequence. Hon. Members


on both sides of the House should be interested in that. The impact of street crime is not something that worries just the law and order brigade on the Conservative Benches. It worries many ordinary people in the community who suffer from the increase in muggings and burglaries.
Many problems of vandalism occur today. Instead of creating new crimes of vandalism in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, which has had no impact on the level of vandalism, although it will have had an effect on the number of people who are accused of the crime, we should be considering much more effective methods of reducing crime.
We must again go back to the evidence of the winter of 1973–74 to see the real impact of street lighting on crime. During that winter, when the cut-back in electricity was severe, the Secretary of State for the Environment was given to exhorting the nation to brush its teeth in the dark to save electricity. He was only prevented by Tory purity from suggesting bathing together to save electricity.
At that time, local authorities were exhorted to close down every second street lamp to save electricity. The Government requested local authorities to cut street lighting by half, which many of them agreed to do.
Some local authorities chose to watch carefully the correlation between crime in a control period and in the period of the blackout.
A study made in Brighton showed an increase of reported break-ins to houses of 100 per cent. Thefts from vehicles increased by 59 per cent. In the Preston area, all crimes went up by 55 per cent.
The Lancashire police, Preston division, broke down its general records of increases in crime during that period into the following categories. Housebreaking went up by 65 per cent., shop break-ins by 66 per cent., thefts from vehicles by 13 per cent., thefts from persons by 25 per cent., and thefts from shops and stalls by 65 per cent. There was a clear increase in crime, which can be explained only by the artificial reduction in street lighting. That example should be considered carefully by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Since 1973, lighting technology has considerably improved. Much more lighting is available of greater intensity and more cheaply. Modern lighting to replace existing systems would be brighter and save energy. We need not go back, during the coming winter of discontent, to the privations that were experienced during 1973–74.
8.30 pm
This has been a useful opportunity to explore the issues of considerable public importance which, I venture to suggest, have not been debated in sufficient detail in the House before. This also gives me the opportunity to debate a subject other than foreign affairs, which has tended to envelop my life, although I am tempted to discuss the street lighting in Moscow that I saw three weeks ago. Ancient incandescent light standards are being used there, which could be replaced from the modern facilities of Philips in Hamilton, in my constituency. I am sure that my experiences in the streets of Moscow will open up new vistas in British-Soviet trade terms.
One also sees dramatic lighting effects when one looks across the Berlin wall. Outside the average football stadium, there is no more intensively lit public property

in the world than the area between the two walls in Berlin. I do not advocate that, but lighting is important in both foreign and domestic affairs.
There is also the worrying problem in Scotland of the possible cost to the community of the street lighting programme. Conservative Members are prone to talk at great length about increasing the size of the police force and support for it. However, every additional policeman who is recruited to man the beats of the country costs approximately £20,000 per annum, in salary and establishment costs. For that additional policeman, one could have 1,300 light standards per annum. Despite the fact that my brother and father are policemen, that comparison should be made, and we could usefully reduce the level of street crime with better lighting.
A renewal programme for street lighting would save energy, provide better lighting and, as a consequence, save public finance. A major programme of street lighting, funded by the Government, with the objectives that I have laid out, would save money, energy and lives, and reduce crime. I can think of no better cause for the Minister to champion at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Dewar: I listened with fascination to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). At least those of us who are gathered here this evening will now not have to read his pamphlet on street lighting, which is of some benefit to us. The co-author of the pamphlet is the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). It appears that the issue transcends party politics. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not here to take part in the debate. I suspect that he is huddled in a tent by the roadside measuring traffic flows on motorways with a view to adding to the impressive statistical base that lies behind that effort. I am genuinely impressed by the detailed knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, revealed in the pamphlet. It refers to the pattern of traffic on the Micklefield Green-South Mimms stretch of the A405. That is an important part of the mosaic of evidence with which my hon. Friend has built up his case.
I thought that my hon. Friend was about to argue that if we abolished the entire police force we could plant lamp standards across Britain in a way that would rival the efforts of the Forestry Commission in the Highlands. Perhaps I am being a little flippant. I genuinely recognise my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in road safety and attendant matters. Street lighting has an important and significant part to play. I have followed his arguments on matters such as seat belts for many years. In my innocent youth, I thought that there was only one form of seat belt, but it turns out that there are endless variations and sophistications. My hon. Friend has fought the battle long and hard, with considerable success. He has raised a matter of some interest and importance. Those of us who are here will look with sympathy on the general case that he has made.
My hon. Friend's arguments on road safety were persuasive and compelling. There is no doubt that if we could improve the standards of road lighting, we could improve road safety. It is always a matter of balance between the expense and the saving in human life and the cost of the injuries that result from inadequate lighting on some of our motorways.
I say to my hon. Friend a little more gently that some of his arguments on the crime figures were a little less


persuasive. I have no doubt that the figures that he produced are entirely genuine, but, when there is a sudden failure of street lighting and a sudden increase in crime, that does not mean that if there were poor street lighting there would be a permanent increase in crime. The equivalent argument—and it is a well known statistical fact— is that, when the lights in New York failed, the birth rate doubled; but if one had bad lighting permanently in New York, that would not double the world population. There is what one might call an opportunity element in both sets of statistics. My hon. Friend should consider that aspect before going for broke on the fact that in Brighton, of all places, cuts in street lighting doubled the amount of house-breaking.
However, that is only a gentle caveat against the general case that my hon. Friend made. I have no doubt that adequate lighting is a disincentive to crime and makes the life of the police easier. My hon. Friend mentioned £90 million to £105 million for installing lighting throughout the motorway network, which is impressively modest compared with some of the savings that might result. Like my hon. Friend, I have a totally realistic impression of what the Minister can promise or suggest in general terms, but I hope that the argument has not been lost on the Government Front Bench, and that Ministers will be prepared to consider it.

Mr. George Robertson: One of the significant points about motorway lighting is that more lighting has been installed on motorways since they were built than at the time when they were built. My hon. Friend poured some humour on the statistics about one section of the M25. The M25 orbital motorway round London will be the busiest motorway in Europe, and only 25 per cent. of it will be built with lighting on it. That is an extraordinarily short-sighted policy for anybody to pursue.

Mr. Dewar: There is much sense in what the Minister is saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] The air of natural authority with which my hon. Friend advanced his argument took me to a future time, for just a moment.
I was not poking fun at my hon. Friend's argument on that point. I was merely putting in a few gentle reservations about the way in which he buttressed a good case in terms of the crime figures. I am glad to associate myself with his general case. There is an important argument to be advanced about increased lighting, particularly on the motorways, and, no doubt, generally throughout the road network.
I do not want to delay the Committee with a lengthy debate on that matter, so I shall move on to a detailed point, as we are on clause stand part, which I should like the Minister to clarify. Often one feels a little inhibited about raising probing points on clause stand part on the Floor of the House. I would have no inhibitions if we were in Committee upstairs, and no doubt many hundreds of other points could be raised, but it is worth airing this point.
I remind the Minister—he may have forgotten—that we are on clause 34. Subsection (1) states:
A local roads authority shall provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads, which are, or will be, maintainable by them and which in their opinion ought to be lit.
Local authorities suggested that there may be problems with that form of wording. The term "or proposed roads" refers to roads within new housing developments, which were constructed according to regional standards, which

are likely to be taken over in future, and which, in terms of clause 34(1), may have to be provided with street lighting by the regional authorities.
The point that arises is put most simply in the explanatory memorandum. It states:
Clause 20 will require local roads authorities to consider applications from private developers for consent to construct roads, a requirement which at present applies only in former burghs. Any administrative expense arising will, however, be more than offset by the saving which will result from roads authorities being able to require the developer to instal lighting when constructing the road, instead of themselves installing lighting at public expense as frequently happens at present.
The point is self-evident. There may be extra administrative costs as a result of the legislation. but these will be more than offset by considerable savings. Instead of the local authority having to install road lighting for new roads and housing developments, it can be done by the developer at no cost to the local authority and with considerable savings for ratepayers.
Yet clause 34(1), which lays a duty on local authorities to provide lighting for roads, also refers to proposed roads. Those two statements seem to be partially contradictory. Local authorities are alarmed that they may end up having to install lighting on roads in housing developments. They may end up with the costs that they have traditionally met in the past and the full administrative expense, which they apparently do not need to worry about because of the savings. The point is of importance and needs clarification. It probably arises from confusion. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest.

Mr. Home Robertson: I find it difficult to understand the distinction between the rights that we are creating for local roads authorities and those for the Secretary of State. Clause 34(1) states:
A local roads authority shall provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads",
Whereas subsection (2) states:
The Secretary of State may provide and maintain lighting for roads, or proposed roads".
Why should a local authority have a statutory duty imposed on it to provide lighting on roads or proposed roads? It is peculiar that there should be a statutory duty on local roads authorities to set up lamp standards on what is not yet a road.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State will have only discretionary power to provide lighting, even on existing roads that fall within the auspices of his Department. It is difficult to understand that distinction. If a road needs lighting, it needs lighting and it should have it, whether it is the responsibility of the local authority or of the Minister with responsibility for the Scottish Development Department. Why does the Secretary of State escape so lightly?

Mr. Allan Stewart: The House has listened to a well-informed and researched speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), whose interest in road safety is well known to us. I have sympathy with some points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but nobody would dispute the general point about the importance of street lighting. It is possible to interpret crime figures in different ways, but street lighting is important in crime prevention. I would not go so far as to take examples from Moscow or Berlin, but when I look out from 34 Rowan road, Dumbreck, I am considerably


reassured by the fact that the new road is extremely well lit. The general brightening up of the area through lighting undoubtedly helps in crime prevention.
The hon. Member for Hamilton made a good case on road safety grounds. That is the prime consideration that must dominate thinking about the provision of street lighting. We take road safety fully into account when we make decisions about new road lighting, but each decision must be taken on its merits. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's research will be taken fully into account when we make such decisions. I assure him that I shall read such parts of "Light up the Roads" that are not in the Official Report at the earliest opportunity because he is an expert in that area.
In answer to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I must say that there is not a problem. The term "proposed roads" is a restricted definition as a result of amendment No. 86, which was considered earlier.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked about the apparent differences in the obligations on roads authorities and the Secretary of State.
Roads authorities are obliged to
maintain lighting for roads … maintainable by them and which in their opinion should be lit.
It is important to interpret the clause as a whole.
With those explanations of some of the points raised, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD HUMPS BY ROADS AUTHORITY

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I am curious about clause 35(a), A road is subject to a statutory speed limit of 30 mph or less for motor vehicles. If we put road humps into a road, we are attempting to lower the speed limit well below 30 mph. Any car driver will recognise the fact that if he hits a hump on a road at 30 mph he will do himself, his car and his passengers considerable damage. I would have thought that it was not enough to write in a 30 mph limit. The purpose of humps is to lower the speed limit considerably below the statutory limit. There is one such hump on the road leading to Jordanhill college of education——

Mr. Dewar: There are several.

Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend says, there are several. We drove up there last Friday to a school mock United Nations assembly, at which we were honoured guests. The speed limit on that road is 10 mph. On other private roads that I have seen there is a speed limit of either 10 mph or 15 mph. A limit of 30 mph, which will be a statutory obligation, is too high and could cause considerable problems to drivers. If they hit those humps at 30 mph, it will not be comfortable.

Mr. Bill Walker: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said. I do not know whether that statement will worry him.

Mr. Maxton: There must have been something wrong with it.

Mr. Walker: Yes, there must have been. I have noticed that on fast roads, as one approaches roundabouts or other hazards, one meets what are humps or lumps—they are certainly changes in the surface—which are a warning that one is approaching the hazard. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that sort of road construction is covered by the term "road humps"? If not, what are they called and where are they defined? I have not found a definition anywhere in the Bill. As they are used to prevent accidents and to reduce speeds, they should be considered carefully.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am as unhappy as are my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the idea of a substantial obstruction more than a few inches high being erected on a public road that has a statutory speed limit of as much as 30 mph. Anyone who goes over such a substantial hump at that speed could cause severe damage to his vehicle, to himself or to other road users. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North. When road surfaces are varied the noise that one hears inside the car changes, which is a good way of reducing traffic speed.
As this is the first reference in the Bill to miles per hour, can the Minister say anything about the Government's intentions for the imperial measurement system——

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the Minister does, he will be entirely out of order.

Mr. Home Robertson: This is a consolidation measure which replaces several statutes that have been in force for a long time, and I presume that the Government intend that this legislation should remain in force for at least a few years. Does that mean that we are saddled with mph? I should not use the word "saddle" because it is pejorative, but we have two systems of measurements going at once for temperatures, weights and distances. We buy materials in metres and distances are quoted in metres or kilometres. Does the clause imply that the mile will be with us for the next half century, together with the kilometre?

Mr. David Marshall: I agree with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). This clause is yet another attempt to bring Scottish legislation into line with English legislation. Can the Minister tell the Committee what has been the English experience with road humps?
Clause 35(a) says that an authority may construct road humps if
(a) the road is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or (b) the road humps are authorised.
Does that mean that the Minister is considering authorising road humps on roads that have no speed limit? What does clause 35 (b) mean, and will the Minister define a road hump?

Mr. Allan Stewart: In reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and to other hon. Members who have raised the point, I should emphasise the fact that 30 mph would be a maximum speed limit. The clause empowers a local authority to construct road humps in a road maintainable by it if
the road is subject to a statutory speed limit … of 30 miles per hour or less.


The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and other hon. Members said that one would normally expect a hump to be constructed in a road with a speed limit of rather less than 30 mph.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) made a good point, because the word between paragraphs (a) and (b) is not "and" but "or". That implies two different conditions, not two linked conditions. Clauses 36, 37 and 38 lay down the way in which road humps will be authorised. Why is paragraph (b) in the Bill at all unless it is a condition different from that in paragraph (a)?

Mr. Stewart: I shall return to that point when we consider later clauses. As the hon. Gentleman said, the authorisation is also contained in clause 39.
Humps are mainly intended for urban areas where the speed limit is likely to be 30 mph. The hon. Member for Shettleston asked me about the English experience, but he will know that the hump regulations were introduced only in August 1983, so it is too early to say what the results of that experience have been. As to timing, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has tabled an amendment relating to the introduction of the provisions in Scotland.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the different textures in the road surface to which he referred are termed rumble strips and are used to warn traffic of hazards ahead. They are not road humps as defined in the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

REGULATIONS CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ROAD HUMPS

9 pm

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 25, line 14, at end insert
'including a requirement that no hump may exceed 4 inches in height'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 150, page 97, line 8, after 'section', insert 'and sections 35 to 39'.
No. 231, in page 97, line 9, at end insert
'(in this Act referred to as "the commencement of this Act").
(2A) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint—
sections 35 to 39;
section 149(3) and Schedule 10 in so far as they relate to the Transport Act 1981.'.

Sir Hector Monro: We have already heard part of the argument about humps, so I shall be brief. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will congratulate me on sitting here for five hours without mentioning the bypasses at Dumfries and Annan, which are overdue and essential.
I presume that the provision for humps was put into the Transport Act 1981 because of a brainwave of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I am incredulous that the Scottish Office should translate what was in that Act into this Roads Bill dealing with Scotland.

There is no doubt in my mind that these humps, or sleeping policemen, are a danger, particularly to cyclists and motor cyclists, and exceptionally so if part of the road is covered in snow. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has told us about what the Minister calls rumble strips. To meet some of those at speed in the early stages of the work on the A9 was disconcerting. I hope the Minister will consider carefully whether this practice should be continued where high-speed motoring can take place safely on a fine new road.
I proposed the amendment because there is such a variation in the size of the humps and of sleeping policemen on private roads. I am sure the Minister has noted that anywhere there are sleeping policemen or humps the roadside is littered with exhaust pipes that have been hauled off by the humps because they have been put at too high an elevation and with the wrong gradient of slope. Therefore, I propose that there should be a maximum height of 4 in. to save the exhaust pipes of motor cars and in particular to make it more safe for motor cyclists and cyclists who may meet these obstructions in the road unexpectedly as, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will no doubt say, it is impossible to see them in good time. I am sure the Minister will accept my proposal.
I am speaking briefly on the amendment because I know that the Minister will say that there will not be any sleeping policemen without tremendous consultation with every conceivable road user, all the motoring organisations, local authorities, road traffic engineers and all the rest of them. The thought that he might be in a position at the end of the day to authorise humps fills me with horror. I hope that this will not take place in Scotland. The Minister should at least accept my amendment which will show that the Scottish Office is on the wrong road relative to humps.

Mr. Bill Walker: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has made what he judges to be a clear response to my previous intervention. However, I wish to speak in support of the amendment proposed by him. I can find no reference in the Bill to rumble strips, though they may be mentioned, because it is a fairly large Bill. There are references to nearly all the other things that one finds on the road surface, so if there is no reference to rumble strips I wonder why they are not mentioned.
When considering the proposal for the height of the humps to be 4 in., my hon. Friend would be well advised to visit the new bypass at Killiecrankie. Some changes were made in the road works to permit this bypass, of which I heartily approve. My hon. Friend made this possible. Before one enters the bypass, one meets rumble strips. I thought that they were a modern version of sleeping policemen, because they are about the same size as many other sleeping policemen whom I have met. [Laughter.] I thought that Labour Members would enjoy that. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Armstrong, that this is not the most exciting of debates, and any levity is helpful.
Sleeping policemen are just round humps to the ordinary layman. The rumbling strips on the A9 at Killiecrankie are similar to humps on the road. Certainly they are under 4 in, high. They are a certain distance apart, which make them appear to be the same type of thing. Indeed, they achieve the same objective—to slow the


traffic down. In that respect they are successful. They work. I am not objecting to their presence. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that they do not appear to be referred to in the Bill. They certainly come under the 4 in. in height for which my hon. Friend was calling, and they are effective.

Mr. George Robertson: I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The outburst on road humps which he waited five hours to deliver was extraordinary. I remind him that road humps exist in law not because of some interfering bureaucrat, nor even because of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, but through the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who moved a new clause in Committee on the Transport Bill two years ago, thereby introducing the concept of road humps into law. His hon. Friends in the Government accepted the new clause and it has now become law. They became law because they worked. They slow down traffic.
The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at a case that came before the courts only last week. Record compensation was paid when an American was killed in a road crash between Prestwick airport and Glasgow. It was alleged that the car was being driven at speeds in excess of 100 mph.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is my hon. Frind suggesting that there should be road humps on that road?

Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend is jumping in ahead of me. I am trying to make the point that in Britain speed is a matter of increasing concern to the community. The court case last week illustrated the fact that we are gradually tolerating higher and higher speeds on the roads. A serious lobby is now active in the House arguing for higher speed limits on Britain's roads. The United States, the very pinnacle of free enterprise, has universal speed limits on all its roads of 56 mph, not only for energy conservation, but because it is safer.
We should strongly resist the idea that speed limits should be increased. In urban areas and in specific areas where road humps are being used there is a considerable case for saying that traffic speeds should be reduced. Simply putting up a small sign saying 15 mph or 20 mph is not enough. A physical obstacle with the appropriate warnings is required to ensure that the traffic travels at a speed at which pedestrians are safe. Urban areas are in great danger of being ruled by the motor car. Somebody once described drivers as motorised fascists—if that is not an unparliamentary expression. Our lifestyle is being dictated by motor cars and the threat which they present. There is nothing wrong with, and a considerable amount to be said for, road humps to reduce compulsorily the speed of traffic in areas where traffic is a hazard. Therefore, I urge the Minister to avoid the siren voices coming to him from below the Gangway and stand up for the bipartisan policy which led to road humps being introduced into legislation.

Mr. Craigen: Clauses 33 to 39 will enable roads authorities to install road humps on roads. They will come into effect on 1 January 1985 unless the House agrees to accept the amendments which have been tabled.
I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said. I know his interest in road

safety. I take the view that the problem facing us on many of our roads is not so much humps as lumps. This harks back to the condition of some of our roads. If we intend to expend a lot of energy on constructing road humps, we should be clear how effective they will be.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro) has a vintage Bentley. When he said that he wanted 4 in. humps I thought that he was trying to score a point on us. With an Austin Allegro, 3 in. would be more in tune with what I would find acceptable.
It is important to take time to consider how the experience in England unfolds before road humps are proliferated all over Scotland. Indeed, quite a few have been constructed already. I ask the Minister to tell us the number of road humps which the Scottish Office has authorised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) perceptively noted, the earlier clause confirmed the either/or situation. Will most of the road humps come direct from Scottish Office authorisation, or through the devolution of road hump powers? It would be useful if the Minister could comment on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, who was persuasive over his road safety considerations, pointed out that the introduction of road humps was a tactical device to try to stave off the introduction of safety belts.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is that rumble strips are not defined in the Bill, but if he has any detailed questions about their application we shall doubtless be able to discuss the matter.
I appreciate the point of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and I am not at all unsympathetic to it. If and when my right hon. Friend comes to make recommendations on the subject under clause 37, he will have the proposal in the amendment much in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it would be unfortunate if the flexibility of the recommendations which are not yet determined were to be fettered, however desirable in principle.
I accept my hon. Friend's point about the 4 in. limit. The equivalent in English regulations allows a 15 per cent. tolerance on the 4 in. limit. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it would be better not to write such a point of detail into primary legislation. It is more appropriate to the regulations. I give the assurance that, in the event of regulations being drawn up, the presumption will be that the height specification will not exceed that of regulations south of the border. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 pm
On amendments Nos. 230 and 231, I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that it would be in exceptional circumstances only that the authorisation power of the Secretary of State would be used. I can confirm that no humps on roads have as yet been authorised, and that those in Scotland are purely on private roads. The amendment of the hon. Member for Maryhill could be defined as a "canny" amendment. He said that the Government should take a hard look at the effect of road humps in England before taking any action in Scotland. However, I believe that we have had an interesting debate on them. Hon. Members have, of course, but forward different points of view. I believe that the proposal is sensible, and I shall later commend amendments Nos. 230 and 231 to the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his constructive and sympathetic reply to the debate. I could have been much rougher on the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He apparently wants to have sleeping policemen from London to Glasgow, so that on one can go at more than 20 mph and so that they jump like kangaroos all the way. Obviously, there are limits to reducing the speed at which cars travel, and there would be no point in building motorways that are designed for high speed traffic if we were then to use sleeping policemen, as the hon. Gentleman desires.
However, in view of my hon. Friend's approach to the debate and his undertaking to give the matter serious consideration when the regulations are drawn up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 35 TO 38

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 26, line 18, leave out '1967' and insert '1984'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 26, line 35, at end insert
'; and such provision and maintenance may take place whether the road is in existence and open to public traffic or is a proposed road in course of construction'.

No. 96, in page 26, line 38, after 'road', insert '(or proposed road)'.

No. 97, in page 26, ire 42, after 'road' insert
'(or, where the road is a proposed road, which will on completion of that road be so entitled)'.

No. 98, in page 27, line 41, at end insert—
'(9) Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, in subsections (3) to (7) of this section and in Schedule 4 to this Act references to a road shall be construed as including references to a proposed road.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir Hector Monro: I shall be brief. Clause 40 implies that the highway authority will install cattle grids, but clause 46, which deals with who is to pay for them, would seem to sound the death knell for any well-intentioned ideas about them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that. Also, are we dealing only with B and C class roads, as fairly strong views seem to be held by the Minister about A class roads?
In this day and age there is much more interest in conservation than there was before, and I am surprised that my hon. Friend has not followed up the suggestion that I made some 15 years ago in a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I refer to my suggestion for ramps for hedgehogs. All that is needed is a simple addition to the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that point on Report. A ramp for small animals should be available in every cattle grid which is installed where the local authority is responsible. Not only hedgehogs, but doormice, rabbits, and so on, would then have some

opportunity of escaping if, by mischance, they fell through the bars into the well below. Otherwise, they could be trapped for the rest of their rather brief lives. I hope that my hon. Friend will contemplate making an amendment to the Bill, as I am sure that all those interested in wild life and conservation would welcome it.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting the comments made by the lion. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Like him, I have raised similar points in Committee stages on several Bills. Indeed, I am glad to see the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) indicating assent. He evidently remembers earlier exchanges over the construction of cattle grids.
The hon. Member for Dumfries is quite right. Cattle grids can be a serious hazard to small animals, as they can fall into them. I understand that there is now a British standard to cover that point. We are supposed to be concerned about conservation, so we must change the specifications of cattle grids to ensure that, first, there is a ramp so that, if a small animal falls into the pit, it has some way of climbing out. Secondly — and equally important — the pit must be properly drained. If a hedgehog falls into a pit and is drowned in the water, a ramp is of limited value to it.
Amid all this hilarity, I am making a serious point. It is distressing to see those poor little beasts lying dead in the pits from starvation or drowning. That applies not only to hedgehogs, but to many other small animals. It would not kill the Minister—as the hedgehogs have been killed —to accept the spirit of what has been said.

Mr. Maxton: I am surprised at the great concern for hedgehogs shown by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who, in our last debate, said that he wanted to drive his car as fast as possible. He probably kills three hedgehogs every night as he drives home in his vintage Bentley. Therefore, his concern for the one or two hedgehogs which may fall through a cattle grid is a bit much.
I am concerned about subsection (7). Usually a cattle grid on a road has a bypass for cyclists, pedestrians, and so on.

Mr. Home Robertson: What about cattle?

Mr. Maxton: Yes; cattle being moved by a farmer would be taken on the bypass round the grid.
Subsection (7) uses the word "may" in relation to providing a gate. What is the point of having a bypass if there is no gate? If there is a gate, the cattle we are trying to stop crossing the grid will go round the bypass. Therefore, there must be an obligation on the roads authority to provide a gate. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Clause 40 does not in any way change the present position for the provision of cattle grids. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro) mentioned its relationship to clause 46. The purpose of clause 46 is to allow a roads authority to enter into agreement with anyone willing to contribute towards the expense incurred in connection with a cattle grid.
The debate has concentrated on hedgehog ramps. I am happy to assure the Committee that that is a matter not for legislation, but for the detailed design of cattle grids. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the proper provision of hedgehog ramps.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) asked about subsection (7), which enables an authority to
provide and maintain on a by-pass any gate or other works necessary for the proper control of traffic and the efficient operation of the cattle-grid".
This enabling clause gives the roads authority the discretion to provide whatever is appropriate in the particular circumstances.

Sir Hector Monro: I am afraid that that is not a good enough answer. At the moment, anyone can put in a hedgehog ramp. However, I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will go to the local authorities and the Scottish Development Department and say that all future categories must be designed with ramps to enable small animals to escape. That is all that I am asking him to do, and I hope that he will agree.

Mr. Stewart: I fear that I cannot give such a categorical assurance. This is a matter of detailed design. It is not appropriate for this legislation, however sympathetic I may be to the points that hon. Members have made.

Mr. Wilson: If it is not possible to put something such as this into primary legislation, perhaps the Minister will consider adopting his earlier suggestion that this should be contained in regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 41 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

PLANTING OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GRASS OR OTHER PLANTS BY ROADS AUTHORITY

Amendments made, No. 99, in page 31, line 9, after 'road', insert
'or of a proposed public road which is in course of construction'.

No. 100, in page 31, line 16, after 'road', insert '(or proposed road)'.

No. 101, in page 31, line 18, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 102, in page 31, line 18, after 'road', insert '(or proposed road)'.

No. 103, in page 31, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (which provides a procedure for certain cases where works involve the alteration of telecommunication apparatus) shall, subject to subsection (4) below, apply, for the purposes of any works which may be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this section, to the roads authority.
(4) Where the roads authority is the Secretary of State, sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (offence) shall be omitted for the purposes of the application of that paragraph to him by subsection (3) above.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister comment on the matter of maintaining the trees and shrubbery once they have been planted?

Mr. Maxton: Subsection (2) says:
No such tree, shrub, grass, other plant, guard or fence shall be planted (or as the case may be erected) or allowed to remain in such a situation as to hinder the reasonable use of the road".

Does this conflict with legislation on the protection of trees and on planning? I know that some trees have been deliberately left because special permission would be needed to cut them down. They cause a small obstruction of vision for a driver approaching a major road from a minor road. It is difficult for such a driver to see what is on the main road because of the tree. Does this clause mean that the tree would have to be cut down in that case?

Mr. Home Robertson: I declare an interest in that I am a farmer who has some land, on which there are trees growing, that adjoins roads. I take this opportunity to seek some clarification from the Minister.
It would be a pity if this clause were to lead to the wholesale clearance of roadside trees throughout Scotland. Farmers in general, and other people in the countryside, get a lot of criticism for cutting down trees, pulling up hedges and denuding the countryside generally. In many areas, the only trees that are left are those by roads and hedges. If, as a consequence of clause 48, roads authorities were to start requiring landowners, farmers, tenants and anybody else to remove trees and shrubs because they are too near the road, Scotland would be a poorer and less attractive place.
There is a potential conflict between two pieces of legislation—this legislation and planning legislation on tree preservation. I have experienced this problem. I have had a roads authority tell me that a tree will have to be cut or its branches will have to be lopped off because they are too near to the road. When I have noised it abroad that this work was about to be undertaken, the local planning authority has said, "Oh no, you don't." I am told that I need a felling licence to fell the tree, or a tree preservation order is put on it. Which piece of legislation will take precedence? Clause 48 tells us that we must fell trees near roads, yet there is what is perhaps more legitimate legislation on planning and protection of the countryside, which provides that trees should be left in place. The Minister cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The simple answer to the questions that have been raised is that the clause applies only to new trees, trees which will be planted. It does not apply to existing trees.

Mr. Home Robertson: Some trees reach maturity and have to be felled and others are blown down by gales, for example. Frequently people are put under pressure by planning authorities to replace such trees by replanting young trees. If someone has been responsible for roadside trees and wants to replace an existing tree, will he have to go to the roads authority or the Scottish Development Department to get permission to plant a tree?

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is raising an issue that is more appropriate to clause 89, to which we shall come in due course. Clause 48 simply enables a roads authority to plant trees and shrubs within, or partly within, a public road boundary and to take protective measures. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked me about the maintenance of such trees. It would be a responsibility of the roads authority to maintain the trees that it planted.

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

PLANTING OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GRASS OR OTHER PLANTS BY PERSON OTHER THAN ROADS AUTHORITY

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Hector Monro: I am interested in the fact that the clause authorises proprietors
of land adjoining a public road
to plant or maintain trees within the highway boundary. I welcome the planting of trees, and I had something to do with the planting of trees along the A74 when I was the chairman of a planning committee. My hon. Friend's Department is reluctant, for reasons of road safety, to allow hotel signs of high quality and attractiveness to be placed within the highway boundary. Surely the reluctance on the Department's part to allow such signs to be placed within the highway boundary cannot be attributed to road safety reasons, when it is prepared to have trees within the boundary, which are more likely to cause damage to a car. It seems that my hon. Friend is in conflict with his own principles. Will he look more favourably on allowing road signs, hotel signs, and other signs advertising services and facilities to tourists to be positioned within the highway boundary?

Mr. Bill Walker: I support the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It is disappointing that we shall not have the opportunity to debate the new clause which my hon. Friend tabled on this important issue.
The arguments that we hear constantly about road safety are advanced on the ground that hotel signs, for example, will cause problems to motorists. I welcome the planting of trees and the opportunities that are given to landowners and proprietors with land close to the roadside to plant trees. The more trees that are planted, the better, but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it cannot be said that it is wrong to have suitable high-quality road signs for hotels.
In my constituency some new trees have been planted along a roadside fairly recently, and one of the trees contains a sign for the Ballathie House hotel. The sign is near a beech hedge. The sign is attractive and the tree is attractive and I can see no reason why the combination should not be encouraged. It improves the countryside and it encourages the tourists to return. Such signs indicate to them the places for which they are probably looking. I have never been able to understand the logic of the Scottish Office on this issue, which causes it constantly to refuse the placing of appropriate and attractive signs.

Mr. Allan Stewart: There is no conflict over the planting of trees. The roads authority may specify the conditions in which the trees may be planted and, in particular, may require the authorised person to give any necessary written undertakings to ensure the safety and convenience of road users. My hon. Friends would not wish me to embark on an extended debate on the question of hotel signs and so on, although I know that they are concerned about such matters. I hope that they will accept my assurance on the limited point that there is no conflict between the Government's attitude to that and the purpose of clause 49.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

POWER TO EXECUTE WORKS TO MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTING OR IMPROVING ETC. ROAD

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 32, line 3, leave out 'any

No. 105, in page 32, line 4, leave out 'any' and insert 'a'.

No. 106, in page 32, line 5, leave out 'any' and insert 'a'.

No. 107, in page 32, line 5, after 'or', insert 'as the case may be'.

No. 108, in page 32, line 9, leave out 'a' and insert `any'.

No. 109, in page 32, line 10, after 'the', insert `last mentioned'.

No. 110, in page 32, line 18, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

AGREEMENTS AS TO USE OF LAND NEAR ROADS

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 32, line 21, after first 'road', insert '(or proposed road)'.

No. 112, in page 32, line 21, leave out `the surroundings of the road' and insert `its surroundings'.

No. 113, in page 32, line 23, after `road', insert `(or proposed road)'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

POWER TO INSTAL REFUSE OR STORAGE BINS IN ROADS

Amendment made: No. 114, in page, 33, line 7, after `road', insert
', or a proposed road in course of con-surroundings'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

PROVISION OF PICNIC SITES FOR TRUNK ROADS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 33, line 12, after `road', insert
', or a proposed public road which is trunk road,'.

No. 116, in page 33, line 14, after `road', insert 'or proposed road'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I have three points to make on clause 53. First, it seems to me that the clause should contain clause 52 as well. Clause 53 states that the Secretary of State may provide buildings and execute work on picnic sites, and provide facilities, which may include
water closets, urinals, and washing facilities … and facilities for the provision and consumption of meals".
If so, he should and must provide
road bins or other receptacles
for waste materials as well. The Secretary of State should have an absolute obligation to provide facilities for waste if he is to provide the other facilities.
Secondly, does the Secretary of State provide such facilities anywhere at present? I take it that we are referring to trunk roads, and not to facilities on special roads, such as motorway services.
Thirdly, according to subsection (3),
The Secretary of State shall not provide meals or refreshments on the picnic site but may make arrangements for some person other than a regional, islands or district council so to provide".
Why should the Secretary of State deny a regional, district or island council the opportunity to provide facilities for food on a site if it is prepared to do so? Why should the matter be left entirely to private enterprise, which might not wish to make use of the opportunity, while the local authority might wish to make some provision?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that the local authorities do not have enough money to do their work. Why give them more work?

Mr. Maxton: The local authority might make some money for the ratepayers by providing such facilities. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) shakes his head, but if private enterprise can make money, why should not the local authority do so? Most local authorities are considerably more efficient than private enterprise. I fail to see why a deliberate exclusion of local authorities should be built into legislation.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome clause 53, as there are not enough picnic sites in Scotland. This is a positive move to make it possible for tourists and travellers to enjoy the delights of our countryside. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). Clause 53 (3) is important, as the last thing that I would like is for local authorities to become involved in matters that should be handled by local people. Local ratepayers who provide such services would contribute to the well-being of the area. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have pursued for some time the case of people who want to provide such facilities on the A9.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the one thing that is missing from clause 53. I refer to the absence of a limit on the time that people can enjoy the facilities on a site. As my hon. Friend is aware, the more attractive we make such places and the better they are, it is sadly not people who travel who stay there but people who call themselves travellers but want to remain semi-permanently. Is there any legislation that limits the time people can park on the new picnic sites?

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is right to say that it seems a little restrictive to say that regional, island and district councils shall not be allowed to provide meals and the rest on picnic sites. Just this once, however, I should like to speak up for the rights of the Secretary of State for Scotland as a human being. Even Secretaries of State for Scotland are human beings, although recent experience might cast some doubt on that. Clause 53 (3) says:
The Secretary of State shall not provide meals or refreshments on the picnic site".
Suppose the Secretary of State were travelling innocently between his constituency and his home with his family and he stopped at a lay-by or picnic site, opened up a picnic basket and provided a meal or refreshments for his family. Under clause 53 (3) he could be prosecuted. How far have

we gone towards totalitarianism when the Secretary of State can be prevented from having an innocent picnic with his family on the side of a road in Scotland? I can think of many things that I would like to do to the Secretary of State for Scotland but I shall not deprive him of that right.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall deal first with the provision of litter bins and the number of sites. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not provide litter bins at picnic sites. However, there are no such sites at present because the powers in the Bill are new.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that schedule 8 amends the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 to allow the managing authority to make byelaws that would cover such sites.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister said that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not provide picnic sites with waste bins. That is just not good enough. There are large elements of the Bill that we would reasonably assume that any reasonable person would ensure was done without the need for legislation. Why should the Secretary of State be exempt? Why is it always considered that he will be reasonable and will always provide bins? It makes sense to make the provision of waste bins a statutory obligation.

Mr. Stewart: It would not be appropriate to write it into the Bill, but I have said from the Dispatch Box that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not provide litter bins, and my remarks will be on the record.

Mr. Craigen: The Minister has not answered some important questions posed by my hon. Friends. He will be aware that COSLA made two main suggestions in respect of the new powers being introduced in the clause. One was that the Secretary of State should have power to provide off-road parking along trunk roads. The other was that the prohibition against local authorities providing meals and refreshments should be removed.
The Minister will be aware that this has potential for Scotland's tourist industry, apart from the provision of facilities for the Scottish travelling public. I hope that he will comment on the recommendations that were advanced to his officials, if not to himself, by COSLA.

Mr. Stewart: I was in the process of responding to an intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and had not dealt with the point raised by hon. Members, and raised by COSLA, in relation to subsection (3).
It would not be appropriate either for the Secretary of State or a local authority to provide meals or refreshments on a picnic site; that is classically a private enterprise function. The correct role for the Secretary of State, therefore, is to lease the site, or a part of it, to someone from the private sector who could sensibly and properly undertake this function.

Mr. Craigen: This is a new form of uncompetitive privatisation. I should have thought that if a local authority had a trading department that was interested in the provision of refreshments, and could do so on a competitive basis, it should not be excluded from the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Maxton: If we are to have a proper building containing catering facilities leased to a private enterprise


company, that will be acceptable, although I still do not see why the local authority should not have the opportunity, should it so wish — in most cases local authorities will not want to undertake the function—of undertaking this work.
May we have an assurance that this provision does not mean lots of hamburger caravans, often old and ugly-looking vehicles, parking on the site, opening up for business and detracting from the general appearance of the site?

Mr. Stewart: The managing authority will be able to make byelaws covering the site, and they could cover precisely that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

CONTROL OF WORKS AND EXCAVATIONS

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No.117, in page 33, line 39, at end insert
'including conditions requiring public undertakers to co-ordinate their works in relation to services under, over or adjacent to public roads for the purpose of minimising the disruption of such roads.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 118, in page 34, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

New clause 8—Consultation on road repairs—
'It will be the duty of highway authorities to consult recognised motoring and transport organisations as to the planning of repairs and improvement works of trunk roads in order to keep lane closures to an acceptable minimum.'.

Mr. Home Robertson: The clause as drafted provides for control over works and excavations. This being a consolidation measure, this is simply harking back to existing controls which are supposed to apply to excavations affecting roads. Those conditions are not working, which is why I and my hon. Friends have tabled amendment No. 117. It will enable local roads authorities to impose the conditions referred to in clause 54 and also to require public undertakers
to co-ordinate their works in relation to services under, over or adjacent to public roads for the purpose of minimising the disruption of such roads.
The term "public undertakers" always causes amusement. I understand that it applies to those public bodies and nationalised industries which supply services; for example, to British Telecom, water authorities, electricity and gas boards and other bodies which have pipes and cables to be laid under or adjacent to roads.
There is much reason for dissatisfaction over the way in which these works are co-ordinated nowadays. How often have hon. Members come across the most ludicrous succession of events in our constituencies where, for the sake of argument, the regional council first digs up the road to replace a drain. That blocks the traffic and makes a mess, and is noisy. The council reinstates the road, after a fashion, and may come back to reinstate the road properly and paint the white lines on top of it. Then, say, the gas board decides to relay its mains under exactly the same section of road. It repeats the whole palaver. Next,

the telephone people or the authority that is responsible for installing water mains comes along and does exactly the same thing.
It can happen that a particular stretch of road in a particular town is dug up repeatedly for months on end. We have all come across such situations. They are completely unnecessary. If there were a proper consultation procedure and the local roads authority had the power to knock together the heads of the other authorities and say to them, "Look, if you are going to dig up that road, you can all go in there together and put your pipes, cables or ducts into the same section of road, co-ordinate repairs and replacements and minimise costs to public bodies," that would minimise disruption to the roads and nuisance to residents and road users.
I recognise that it may not be as easy as that. Nevertheless, all hon. Members have come across cases in which such a repeat performance of digging up roads could have been avoided if co-ordination had been imposed by the roads authority. Amendment No. 117 will empower roads authorities to impose conditions requiring these bodies to
co-ordinate their works in relation to services under, over or adjacent to public roads.
It is not an unreasonable request and I hope that the Minister will feel able to reply to it.

Mr. Maxton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: : My hon. Friend will get his chance in a wee minute.
It does not seem to be an unreasonable suggestion and would command widespread support, certainly among the population of Scotland and also, I suspect, among local roads authorities. They must be exasperated sometimes at the sight of their roads being dug up time and again by other authorities.
Amendment No. 118 concerns subsection (3). It simply takes out the provision which I hope will be made redundant by amendment No. 117. It takes out a reference to
excavations to which the streets works code, as contained in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, applies".
Experience shows that the so-called street works code is not working in far too many instances. The local roads authorities need additional powers to overcome this problem, which is serious. I hope that the Committee will consider my suggestion seriously.

Sir Hector Munro: I rehearsed all the arguments earlier about the inefficiency, in the view of many hon. Members, in the co-ordination of repairs on the A74. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) also referred to statutory undertakers. Perhaps the Minister will see that things get better rather than worse.

Mr. David Marshall: I support amendment No. 118, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
I understand that subsection (3) means that the roads authority has no control over the operation of public utilities and no power to ensure that road surfaces damaged by public utilities are adequately repaired. Is the Minister aware that in one metropolitan county, for example, there are more than 80,000 road openings per year? How many must there be in a large authority such as Strathclyde?
I also understand that the Secretary of State for Transport has ordered an analysis of the considerable


amount of information available on the need to control the activities of public utilities as they affect roads. As it will probably be some time before a report is available, would it not be desirable to take the powers now to tackle the problem so that action can be taken accordingly as soon as recommendations are made? Does the Minister agree that clause 54 should also apply to public utilities? Will he therefore agree to delete subsection (3)?

Mr. Bill Walker: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). I also support the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), which might surprise him, in almost all that he said about amendment No. 117.
On many occasions, all of us have found it disturbing that the same parts of the same streets have been dug up many times and caused obstructions to the travelling public. Over a long period of time there has been a lack of co-ordination between the various public utility organisations and, I am sorry to say, between the authorities that are carrying out the work and people in motoring organisations and others, who find that the roads cannot be used for various activities.
Therefore, the amendments should be considered seriously by my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Maxton: I am glad that the Conservative Benches are beginning to fill up. I assume that Conservative Members are interested in the amendment and will support it if the Minister says that he is not prepared to accept it.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) is not present, because she made considerable play of this matter during an intervention on Second Reading and earlier this evening. It would have been more responsible of her if she had been present and given her support.
I support the amendments because, time and again, after public bodies dig up a road, along comes someone to repair it, and two days later another public body comes along and digs up the same part of the road. That is not good enough. It is time that we had a way in which we can ensure proper control.
Sometimes private bodies also dig up the roads. I remind the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that not only public, but private, bodies do it.

Mr. Craigen: And British Telecom will, shortly.

Mr. Maxton: That is right. British Telecom will probably be much less responsible when it is privatised that when it was a public body. There is a need for co-ordination to ensure minimal disruption to members of the public.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I appreciate the points that have been made about amendments Nos. 117 and 118. At one time or another, all of us must have experienced the problems in our own constituencies and near our homes when the same stretch of road that was opened up by the gas board one month and just put down again is opened up by the electricity board the next month.
As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, statutory undertakers have a legal right to lay their apparatus in public roads and to inspect and maintain it. In addition, their roadworks are controlled by

the codes of practice contained in the Act to which he referred. He must appreciate, as I hope other hon. Members will, that the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 applies throughout Great Britain. The Government are well aware that since 1950 traffic has increased and that there is a need to review the effectiveness of the codes of practice and the agreements between the public utilities and local roads authorities about the standards of reinstatement.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]

Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Again considered in Committee.

Clause 54

CONTROL OF WORKS AND EXCAVATIONS

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) pointed out that on 30 January my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport announced the appointment of Professor M. R. Horne, recently of Manchester university, to review the workings of the Act and to examine the matter of roadworks by statutory undertakers. I am glad to report that that review team visited Scotland and that the police and COSLA have submitted evidence to it. There was also a contribution from my Department. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments. It would be premature to change existing law when a full scale review of statutory undertakers' operations is taking place. I hope that hon. Members will feel that it is worth awaiting the outcome of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke to his new clause succinctly and briefly. I appreciate the intention behind it. However, I am not sure that he would achieve anything in practice. Such closures are dealt with by powers in the Road Traffic Regulations Act. The amendment is not appropriate in this Bill. Regardless of that, it is already the practice of my Department, when arranging such lane closures, to consult the organisations to which the new clause refers. They include the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the Road Hauliers Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Scottish Auto-Cycle Union and the Scottish Council of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport. If he wishes to suggest further bodies whom he would like us to consult, I shall be pleased to consider them.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Apart from short-term routine maintenance, is the Minister aware that lane closures are especially frustrating for motorists, especially when no one is working on the closed lane?


Recently it has been especially difficult on the Forth road bridge. It may be of great help if those responsible for roadworks remembered that the roads provide a service for road users.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the frustrations that my hon. Friend and others experience from roadworks. They will appreciate, however, that on occasions the urgency for the necessary work precludes some of the consultations to which I have referred. Even in those circumstances my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to consult the police and the local roads authorities.
What I am telling my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries is that those decisions are not taken solely or arbitrarily by my Department, but that a consultation process is already built in. In the case of the A74, he may believe that the results of the consultation are not as he would wish, but he must appreciate that that road, in view of its age, requires much maintenance and renovation if it is to serve the purpose for which it was intended. One penalty of such maintenance and renewal is that parts of the road will be closed at given times.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that in any list of bodies to be consulted on transport in Scotland he should include the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Ancram: I shall consider any suggestions for consultation that are made by hon. Members.

Mr. Craigen: The Secretary of State is responsible for motorways. What often happens is that sections are coned off long before the work begins, which creates unnecessary hold-ups. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is on to a winner here, and I hope that the Minister addresses his mind to the point.

Mr. Ancram: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is also referring to the A74. My Department works with Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway regional councils, as the agent authorities, and we try hard to minimise lane closures and to avoid busy periods such as the Glasgow fair holiday. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that it is in the interests of all road users that the work is done at some time and that, whenever it is done, it will cause inconvenience to some.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will recognise that there is consultation and an understanding of the problem that he outlined. As to statutory undertakers, I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian listened to what I said and will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful for some of the Minister's comments, and I hope that I did not give the impression of being unduly heavy on the public bodies that look after the services underneath the roads. From time to time many of those services must be maintained urgently, as one of my constituents in the village of Longniddry discovered to her alarm a few months ago when her house was blown up as a result of a gas leak. Would to God that that road had been dug up and the gas main repaired before the accident happened. One should not treat such matters lightly.
I am glad that the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have recognised that there is deep

dissatisfaction when roads are messed about repeatedly and apparently unnecessarily. There is a need for better co-ordination.
One's life in this place seems to be a constant waiting for the outcomes of reports or reviews, but I understand from the Minister's remarks that the present review may lead to a review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, and not before time. However, in view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 34, line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
This amendment provides that where anyone has carried out works or made excavations on a public road he will be responsible for maintaining that part of the road for 12 months instead of, as at present, six months. The clauses are unlikely to be used often, as few works are done on roads by bodies other than the roads authorities or public utilities, which are subject to separate codes of maintenance. However, in so far as it might arise, 12 months is a reasonable guarantee period, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: Two small points have been drawn to my attention. In subsection (5) the word "door" is used. It has been observed to me by a roads department that this might cause a little confusion, because in subsection (4) there is no mention of a roads authority being able to carry out the permanent reinstatement. It is felt that such a provision should have been included in the Bill. I should he obliged if the Minister would respond to those points.

Mr. Ancram: In regard to the use of the word "door", I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are different types of coverings for openings in roads. In his and my language some would be called covers while 01 hers resemble more closely a door. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the definition is there to ensure that both types of covering are included.

Mr. Craigen: I asked about it only because a roads department raised it with me.

Mr. Ancram: As a lawyer I have always taken the view in dealing with legislation that a word should be given its ordinary meaning. In terms of covering openings in roads, the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I do, that there are different types of covering. One may be better described as a door than as a cover.
In reply to the point about subsection (4) the hon. Gentleman will see that it provides:
A person shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after he—
(a) executes such works as are …
make good any damage to the road occasioned by the works or excavation and shall immediately thereafter give notice to the authority that the damage is made good".
I find difficulty in understanding the hon. Gentleman's question because the requirement and the obligation appear to be in the subsection.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

OCCUPATION OF PARTS OF ROAD FOR DEPOSIT OF BUILDING MATERIALS ETC

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 36, line 18, at end insert
'Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not constitute a defence as regards any such contravention as is mentioned in section [Saving for, and extension of section 80 of, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974] (1) of this Act.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 4.

Mr. Ancram: This amendment and the new clause have been sought by the Health and Safety Executive which has considerable enforcement powers in relation to public safety. The new clause will ensure that, in the event of conflict between any provision in the Bill and anything in health and safety law, the health and safety measure will take precedence.
The amendment to clause 56 clarifies that the defence in subsection (4) does not apply in relation to any health and safety contravention. I hope hon. Members will agree that it is important that the health and safety law should have precedence.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 36, line 25, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6).
This is in the nature of a probing amendment. If subsections (4), (5) and (6) become law, it will be almost impossible to prosecute anyone who has deposited building materials on the road. Those subsections include so many outs in terms of defence that I do not see any way in which a person could be prosecuted. He might say, "I did not know about it; anyway, I have taken proper precautions," or, "He told me I could do it".
I am not a lawyer. I am glad that it is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) is to reply to this debate, because he is a lawyer, whereas the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is not. Perhaps I am confused, but I have not seen in any previous legislation a clause which gives a person so many opportunities to defend himself on grounds which I thought were not admissible in normal legal practice. I thought that it was generally accepted that ignorance is no defence before the law. The clause gives an opportunity for people to say that they did not know, and therefore they cannot be prosecuted. Will the Minister explain why that is and whether, if it is included, anybody will be prosecuted?

Mr. Wilson: I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). In particular, I want to draw the Minister's attention to subsection (5)(b)— which is the most all-embracing defence that I have ever seen—
was due to a mistake".
All one has to say is, "I am sorry, I made a mistake." Such a person will automatically be exempted from conviction because he has a statutory defence.
I am also interested to know what provision there is for a servant in the employ of someone who is reliant on instructions. Can the principal or the employer be prosecuted? An employee who has deposited building materials on a roadway and who is charged with an offence, may have substantial defences to allow him to

avoid responsibility. If he has relied on instructions from some other party, can that other party be prosecuted and thus made responsible for the dangerous event with which this clause is intended to deal?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who is a lawyer, reads the clause, he will see the circumstances in which a prosecution can be brought. I was not surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has not read section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, which is reproduced along with the defences in the clause, but I am surprised that a lawyer of the eminence of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was not aware of that provision.
The operative word is "prove". It is not just a matter of somebody getting up and saying that they made a mistake or did not know. Obviously an element of proof is required. In those circumstances, proof means that it must be to the satisfaction of the court that that was in fact so.

Mr. Wilson: I take the Minister's point, but, even so,
was due to a mistake
seems to give the widest possible opportunity for somebody to be negligent. I do not think that that was the intention of the statute, the Minister or his Department when it was considered necessary that there should be an offence and that action should be taken to correct it.

Mr. Ancram: That section has been operative since 1959. I have heard nothing to suggest that it has not worked well and fairly. The Bill is largely a consolidation measure. Where laws appear to have worked reasonably and fairly, and in circumstances such as those where we are talking about a defence to an offence, the rights of somebody who finds himself in that position must be safeguarded. In circumstances where a law has worked well, there is no harm in reproducing a measure of this sort. Certainly we should not consider changing it unless information or further evidence were brought forward to show that it was not working.

Mr. Foulkes: I am always worried, especially with consolidation measures, when I hear Ministers talk about the provisions of an Act that have worked well without giving chapter and verse, statistics, illustrations and examples of things that work well.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that over the last few years Acts have been in existence to deal with jay-walking, which is an offence, and with the depositing of litter on the highways. Yet, as far as I know, in few cases are people prosecuted under those Acts. This is so despite the fact that jay-walking can be dangerous and the depositing of litter can create a nuisance. Those are two examples of which I know.
Although there is a law, and although these great bureaucrats when they are consolidating laws insert such provisions, I wonder whether the Minister can give any examples in Edinburgh, in Glasgow, in Dundee, or any other part of Scotland, where these provisions have been invoked and this kind of proof has been put forward.
It does law-making no service for the Minister and the Government to put back on the statute books things that are not working, are not being used and are not being invoked without thinking about the matter deeply. It is about time that we started thinking about some of these things.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman used three phrases—not working, not being used, and not being invoked—that all mean much the same thing. However, he has brought forward no evidence to suggest that that is true. The hon. Gentleman has made assertions. If he were able to specify what was not working and to illustrate cases which should have been prosecuted, but have not, I would consider whether this was the right law to bring forward. As no evidence has been brought forward by any hon. Member, in circumstances where there is a law, and it appears to be working properly and satisfactorily in the interests of persons who are accused of an offence, I believe that the Government have a right to bring forward and re-enact such provisions in a codifying measure.

Mr. Foulkes: It is outrageous to suggest that any hon. Member, least of all me, should go around the country searching for deposits made by offending people. I am sure that anybody in his right mind, particularly Opposition Members, would agree that the burden of proof must rest with the Minister and Government. The Minister is backed up by eminent civil servants and by people wo have the statistics. I am sure that the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) would agree that the burden of proof must rest with the Minister.
However, when the Committee is consolidating a measure, these provisions get lumped together, and the advisers say, "It is in there, Minister; we will keep it in; it is easier, and it might be useful". Can the Minister give examples where the provision that he is consolidating has been helpful, and where the action that he describes has been taken? Unless he can do that, I do not see how the Committee can be satisfied.

Mr. Ancram: I suspect that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was making a second speech rather than an intervention. Many years ago, an experienced debater told me that if one wanted to disrupt things, one should claim that black is white and challenge the opponent to prove that black is black. In the absence of such proof, one should suggest that one is right. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I must have gone to the same debating expert, because he seems to have used that technique this evening.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Ancram: The purpose of the codification is to ensure that it is a defence if somebody who would otherwise be found guilty of an offence can show that certain things have happened. It is not just a question of the person charged being able to prove that the offence is due to a mistake, but that, under the subsection,
he was unaware that he was depositing the materials otherwise than in accordance with a permission granted in subsection (1)".
The hon. Gentleman will find that that last part contains a severe qualification of the preceding parts. The law exists to cater for those who might otherwise find themselves charged, and who have contravened this provision by mistake, because they were instructed to do so or because they were relying on information supplied to them. There is, therefore, a safeguard. In the absence of evidence to show that those safeguards have been operating unfairly, and that people knowingly guilty of the offence have walked free, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—who has a reputation

for looking after and protecting the rights of accused persons—will agree that it is important that this sort of provision should be re-enacted.

Mr. Home Robertson: I tried to intervene in the Minister's speech, but I failed to catch his eye. The best definition of "a mistake" that I could give is to break the law. Someone who had broken the law could defend himself by saying that he had made a mistake by breaking the law. Presumably, such a defence would work. However, the Minister could resolve the problem very quickly by telling us how often, if at all, successful prosecutions have been brought under the legislation that has gone into this consolidating measure.

Mr. Maxton: In my original remarks I said that I welcomed the fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), rather than the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), would be replying to the debate. However, having listened to his reply, I regret having said that.
The hon. Member for Eastwood has been giving us very reasonable replies all evening and we have proceeded fairly rapidly as a result, but things have become snarled up since the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South arrived. He is incapable of giving answers that make any sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) — unlike the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who is his pair, I can say it straight out — asked a perfectly reasonable question. How many prosecutions have there been? If the Minister cannot give us an answer now, my hon. Friend and I will table a series of parliamentary questions asking him how many have taken place.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the legislation works. It is not good enough to say that it has worked and will go on working, so we should leave it alone. The whole purpose of consolidation legislation is that the Minister has an opportunity to look at each part of it and say that this or that is no longer necessary or needs changing. The Minister has not proved to my satisfaction that this legislation is necessary. He has not said that there have been many prosecutions, or that it has stopped people from putting building materials on the road, although that is presumably its purpose. We do not know whether it has stopped people creating traffic hazards. He has not produced any evidence to prove his case, so I am loth to withdraw the amendment. However, as I agree that it would make the clause rather more punitive than would be my wish for the law, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Craigen: I would welcome the Minister's comments on three points. One is that the permission of a roads authority is required only in respect of the occupation of part of public roads and not private roads. COSLA put the point to the Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister appears to have difficulty hearing me because of the hubbub in the Chamber—usually he says that I speak too loudly. I shall begin again.
I understand that COSLA, suggested to the Minister that the permission of roads authorities should be required only


in respect of the occupation of part of public roads and not private roads. Will he comment on that? Secondly, COSLA said that there was no provision for a roads authority to charge a fee for such permission. It believes that a roads authority should be empowered to charge fees where it is intended to occupy parts of roads for building purposes.
My third point concerns the transfer arrangements, although they may be taken care of later in the Bill. There will be manpower implications for the roads authority because of the additional work that it will take on, most of which is currently done by district councils.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall write to him about his first two points, as I want to give him a full answer on the consideration given to the matters raised by COSLA.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point, as he knows, a district council is unnecessarily involved in issuing a consent which it cannot give without consulting the highway authority, so there is a degree of duplication. He referred to the transfer of resources. Currently, both authorities are involved and, as district councils have no road functions remaining, the Government felt that it was a good opportunity to incorporate the provision in the Bill and transfer the function to the roads authority so that it is in the hands of one authority only. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's case is less positive than it might be when we arrive at a later stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

CONTROL OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN ROADS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 37, line 18, after `authority', insert
`or by a constable in uniform'.

The Chairman: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 123 to 125.

Mr. Ancram: The amendments are complementary. Their combined effect is to give the police the same powers as are conferred on roads authorities by clause 57 to have obstructions removed from roads. There is a similar sharing of power in clause 84 on the removal of builders' skips. The amendments, which have the backing of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), are desirable, as they will permit the police, as well as road authorities, to deal appropriately with the safety hazard caused by obstructions on the road. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will have the approval of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made, No. 123, in page 37, line 26, after 'authority', insert 'or a constable'.

No. 124, in page 37, line 26, after 'obstruction', insert `(or cause it to be removed)'.

No. 125, in page 37, line 32, at end insert
', except that where the removal is by a constable the said subsections (8) and (9) shall be read as if any reference therein to the roads authority were a reference to the police authority.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 37, line 33, at end insert—
'(a)'

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 127.

Mr. Ancram: As I am sure hon. Members are aware, amendment No. 126 is a technical one. Amendment No. 127 makes an appropriate exclusion from the clause of works over which control is exercised by the public utilities works code. Again, its purpose is clear, and I hope that it will be approved by the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 127, in page 37, line 36, at end insert
; or
(b) to works to which the street works code, as contained in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, applies. '.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

FENCING AND LIGHTING OF OBSTRUCTIONS AND EXCAVATIONS

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in page 38, line 27, after 'or', insert 'reasonable'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 129, in page 38, line 30, after 'removes' insert, interferes with'.

Mr. Forsyth: These are minor but important additions to clause 58(4), which is the offence provision on the fencing and lighting of obstructions on excavations in the road. As the clause stands, it is an offence for a person to take down or remove such safety items without lawful authority or excuse. It is possible to imagine an offender dreaming up an improbable excuse for his action which woule enable him to escape the penalty provision of the clause. Therefore, the amendment requires that the excuse will be reasonable, and in so doing is consistent with the requirements in clause 122(2).
The second amendment, which I understand has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) is designed to close a loophole in the offence relating to lights on obstructions and excavations in the road. At present it is an offence to remove or extinguish such light, but it is not clear that other dangerous interference, for instance, turning a light round the wrong way, should be caught by the provisions. The second amendment would rectify the position.

Mr. Ancram: I have listened with attention to my hon. Friend's submission on these amendments and I believe that they are improvements to the Bill as it stands. Accordingly, I ask the Committee to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made, No. 129, in page 38, line 30, after `removes' insert, interferes with'.—[Mr. Forsyth.]

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

GRANTING OF PERMISSION TO PLACE AND MAINTAIN ETC. APPARATUS UNDER A ROAD

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 39, line 4, after 'road' insert 'or proposed public road'.

No. 131, in page 39, line 5, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.

No. 132, in page 39, line 5, at end insert—
' 1(A) In subsection (1) above, "proposed public road" means a new road in course of construction by or on behalf of the roads authority.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF TRAFFIC ETC. ON ROADS FOR REASONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY OR CONVENIENCE

Amendments made, No. 133, in page 39, line 23, leave out '12' and insert '14'.

No. 134, in page 39, line 23, leave out '1967' and insert '1984'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 39, line 31, after 'and', insert '(where practicable)'.
This is a minor amendment, which has been requested by COSLA. Where a road authority utilises the power available under clause 60 to determine the restriction on the use of any road, it is required to specify an alternative route. This may not always be possible, particularly in the island areas, and the amendment therefore makes the qualification that it should be required where practicable. Accordingly, I hope that the amendment finds favour with the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 61 and 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

REGULATION OF DRIVERS OF HORSEDRAWN CARTS ETC.

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in clause 63, page 41, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
I was astonished when I read clause 63. It is an example of the "nanny" society at its worst. We are restricting the use of horse-drawn vehicles on the road and it seems that we do not even trust nanny. As the clause stands, an adult will be forbidden from taking a 14 or 15-year-old out and teaching him to drive a pony and trap or a horse and cart. The clause does not provide an exemption for those who are under supervision. It merely provides that no one under the age of 16 can drive a horse and cart or pony and trap. This is incredibly restrictive, especially during a period in the century when we are encouraging, as much as we can, riding and interest in horses generally. If we are to stop the use of horses and traps by youngsters, the next stage will be to stop riding on the roads. This is the thin end of the wedge and should be resisted.
I have no doubt that the Minister will say that 14 years is the present age requirement, but why should it be placed at 16 without any firm evidence that the change will have a dramatic effect? Has my hon Friend had discussions with the National Farmers Union of Scotland on the agricultural use of horses and carts? My hon. Friend has great experience of the countryside and I am sure that, like me, he frequently brought in hay with a horse and bogey, taking it along farm roads and public roads at an age far less than 16. Why should that practice be banned?
Has my hon. Friend considered the repercussions on the agriculture industry? Not many horses are being used nowadays, but there is quite a strong feeling within the industry that horses can do certain work more economically than tractors now that the cost of diesel and the initial cost of a tractor is so high.
There is no justification for this measure. Can my hon. Friend tell me how many drivers aged between 14 and 16 have had accidents in the past year or the last year for which we have statistics? Is there any justification for changing the present law and being more restrictive without producing evidence of youngsters having accidents morning, noon and night because they are driving horses and traps or horses and carts on public roads? This is such a simple amendment that I have no need to speak at greater length. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Bill Walker: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). In recent years in my constituency there has been a substantial growth in the use of ponies and traps. I find this encouraging, because it means that many youngsters have been given the opportunity to indulge in the practice. An age limit of 16 would be rather inhibiting as the children at the local secondary school, many of whom drive ponies and traps, would in future be breaking the law as I understand it. I find it surprising that the age limit has been changed without a real attempt to ascertain the true scene in the countryside. If this is the thin edge of the wedge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries suggests, the next step will be that children on ponies will not be allowed to ride on the roads until they are 16-year-olds.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary would be surprised at the reaction that there would be in Perthshire to such a measure.

Mr. Dewar: I rise to safeguard the agriculture interests of Garscadden, although it may be only rarely that a pony and trap is seen there.
Clause 63(3) defines a drawn vehicle as one that is
pulled by one or more draught animals.
I suppose that a draught animal is any animal pulling a cart or other contrivance. Is a pony pulling a trap to be classed as a draught animal? Clause 63 deals largely with loads and with the securing of loads, and is presumably concerned with things more formidable than a small pony pulling a trap along a road.
I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), if the term "draught animals" is to be widely interpreted. I am not a horsey person, but endless pictures of animals jumping over fences at the Horse of the Year show have made me familiar with the categories. When I think of a draught animal, I think of a Clydesdale, a Shire or some other substantial animal, bred for the purposes of haulage.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Beasts.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, beasts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I think of him as an example of suburban man, but his constituency has given him an agricultural veneer.
What is to be encompassed in the clause? There is to a criminal offence. Is there to be a strict liability? The owner:
commits an offence if he permits".
but presumably an action of commission rather than of omission is required. If my 15-year-old son takes out my pony and trap for a whirl without my permission, shall I be done on the grounds that I permitted the offence by failing to take proper precautions to ensure that he did not do so?
In his days at the Bar, the Minister must have fought many a hard case on such points. Can he say a word or two on these subtleties before we pass on?
Secondly — I am very out of date these days—the offence is punishable by a level two fine. What is a level two fine?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has surprised us all. He has shattered our picture of him as a horsey person. Apparently he relies on television for his equine information.
I have not practised at the Bar for as long as the hon. Gentleman has been away from his solicitor's practice, but I understood that the word "permission" required an act of commission rather than omission. If I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Gentleman's definition of a draught animal is correct. A draught animal is any animal which is capable of pulling a cart or a vehicle. Clearly, the most likely example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir. H. Monro) said, is the horse and cart or pony and trap. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). However, if I were to accept the amendment, the effect would be that a child would be able to drive on the road at any age with impunity. That cannot be what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir Hector Monro: It would be better than what is in the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that very young people being permitted to drive traps on the road could be hazardous. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the practice being mainly something of the past. I listened to earlier parts of the debate, and I am sure that we all agree that the amount of traffic and its speed have increased. A young person might not be in complete control or, indeed, in control at all, of a pony and trap or horse and cart. It is my experience of the countryside that the elderly sometimes find themselves in difficulties while following that pursuit.
I believe that there would be a hazard and that the activity should be restricted to people over the age of 16, as is the case with motor cycles. A child below the age of 16 might be capable of riding a motor cycle, but the age limit still applies in regard to the smallest moped.

Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps I should have declared an interest in that I have a 13-year-old daughter who regularly rides her pony on the roads and more than once has driven a horse and trap. The popularity of the activity is increasing and I encourage it as it is much preferable to some of the ghastly pastimes one reads about. If my hon. Friend leaves in the 16-year-old provision, children at the local high school, who are busily engaged in this activity under instruction, will find that their instructors are breaking the law.

Mr. Ancram: At present, the law lays down a limit of 14 years of age. Anyone who drives a horse and cart under that age is committing an offence. I appreciate the point being advanced by my hon. Friends, but there are other areas where the hobby can be indulged in. Clause 63 does not apply to tracks on farms and other land over which there is no public right of passage. Young people will be able to learn to drive a horse and cart in those areas. The age limit was raised as a result of a recommendation by a civic government working party. We accept the recommendation on the basis that roads are now more dangerous with more and faster traffic than when driving horses and carts was normal practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned their use on farms. I understand that there are still times when they might be used. Their substitution for tractors was what I understood to be his economic argument, but the drivers of tractors have to be much older than 16.
The National Farmers Union has made many comments on the Bill and raised many points. This was not an issue on which it commented. In view of its other comments, perhaps we can assume that it was not offended by this provision. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment. As roads get busier, it is important to ensure that road users are of an age at which they are more likely to be in control of their vehicle. That is in the interests of road safety. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Sir Hector Monro: Subsection (2) says:
The owner of a drawn vehicle commits an offence if he permits a child of under 16 years of age to drive that vehicle on a road.
Is a child allowed to lead a horse and trap? What is the difference? If the child is 2ft off the ground he is prosecuted, but if he walks along holding the horse by its halter or head collar, that is all right. Is the child then in charge, or must he be driving the horse and trap?
The Minister did not say whether any accidents had occurred to children between the ages of 14 and 16, and he did not produce a satisfactory answer to my remarks about driving under supervision. Did he really mean to say that a parent in a horse and trap with a child under 16 cannot allow that child to take the reins for perhaps live minutes or 100 yd because that would be breaking the law? It must be possible to draft the provision so that this can occur with the supervision of an adult.
My hon. Friend said that people could take ponies and traps out into the fields, but many children who live in urban areas are interested in horses. They might want to go into some quiet back street with their parents and learn to drive. We have seen on television the high standards of driving that are achieved by children and adults.
The subsection is totally unnecessary and could be removed from the Bill without any harm being done. I trust that between now and Report my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter, will do something about the question of supervision and will table an amendment to make the age 14. He should also clarify the provision so that people can be sure whether the pony and trap is under the control of the child when driven and not led.

Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on the question of supervision. However, I appreciate the general point that the Minister made, but there may be a case for looking, before Tuesday — appreciating that we have a tight schedule—at the possibility of some provision to cover the situation of a child being at the helm, if that is not the wrong word, with adult supervision.
The hon. Member for Dumfries made a fair point when he asked whether the provision would apply to a child who was leading a pony and trap, as distinct from riding in the trap. If one can escape prosecution by leading, that is a variation on a well-known political slogan, which might go something like, "Two feet good, four feet bad."

Mr. Home Robertson: I think that my hon. Friend means, "Four feet good, six feet bad".

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps, and on another occasion we can argue this nice point of theology.
Will the Minister remind me — I asked him this question earlier— what is the present scale of level. 2 fines? If we have that sum, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will know what horrors will afflict him if he encourages his 13-year-old daughter in her mad gallop towards the Horse of the Year show.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) refers to the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill, he will see the values of the penalty levels, as from 1 May 1984, set out on page V. In level 2 the fine is £100, and I apologise for not having given that information earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), asked about leading. The offence as set out is of driving, and I do not want to get into what could be a complicated argument with him as to whether it is easier to control a horse when one is leading it rather than when one is driving it from a cart.
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I cannot undertake to reconsider reducing the age limit again, to 14, but my hon. Friend has a point about supervision or driving under supervision which I shall wish


to consider further. If he will withdraw the amendment, I shall consider the issue between now and Report and hope to find something which will allow us to cover what I think is a valid point in that respect.

Sir Hector Monro: With that assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be glad to withdraw the amendment. I hope that we shall see an amendment tabled next week.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

MAINTENANCE OF VAULTS AND CELLARS ETC.

11 pm

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 41, line 27, at end insert—
'(3) A person upon whom a notice has been served under subsection (2) above may, within 28 days mentioned in that subsection, refer the matter by summary application to the sheriff; and the decision of the sheriff on the matter shall be final.
(4) A local roads authority, may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure incurred by a person in complying with subsection (1) or (2) above.'.
I do not know whether I shall have any more success with this amendment, but at least I shall try.
The point was brought out by COSLA that the occupiers of premises with cellars or pavement lights would be in a difficult position if they were ordered to carry out repairs but had no right of appeal. The amendment gives the right to appeal to the sheriff. More important—it will be welcomed by those who have this type of structure — the amendment will allow local authorities to repay part of the cost of repairs where cellars and other structures need to be strengthened to take the weight of modern traffic.
It will be a plus on both sides, for the local authorities and for the owners of this type of building and cellar. I am sure that the provision is sensible.

Mr. Home Robertson: I should like, briefly, to add my support to what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is suggesting.
This is a topical problem. I understand that in parts of the new town of Edinburgh—the Minister will be more familiar with it than I am — cellars and vaults were constructed underneath the streets in the style of architecture and town planning of the time.
Harking back to clause 63, which we have just disposed of, in those days we would have talked, not of 30-tonne lorries going round the streets, but of horse-drawn vehicles, which weighed a great deal less.
I understand from an article in The Scotsman, published some time last year, that recent surveys show that some of these vaults in listed buildings in the new town of Edinburgh are the worse for wear as a result of compression and vibration because of modern street traffic. Clearly, there must be many leaseholders in the City of Edinburgh and, no doubt, in other cities in Scotland, who could be confronted by alarming expenses if the clause were passed unamended.
People facing these problems in Edinburgh and other cities should be entitled to some sort of assistance from the state, and to sympathetic consideration. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dumfries is intended in

part to mitigate the problem, but the problem is serious, and it is growing in a number of city areas built at the time of the new town in Edinburgh. It is something about which hon. Members and, indeed, anyone who is concerned for the architecture of Scottish towns should be worried.

Mr. Dewar: I hesitate to rise yet again, but this is an important little area. There has undoubtedly been some anxiety in the local government world about the predicament in which the local authority as well as owners can find themselves, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) outlined.
We would all be very sympathetic to an owner who suddenly found himself in the position where, perhaps because of the increase in and greater weight of traffic roaring past the building, the vault has become unsafe and repairs are required. No one would be hostile, at least to the intention of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
I am not clear what criteria the sheriff would apply to an appeal. There might be argument as to whether repairs were necessary, and I suppose that the sheriff might arbitrate on that. Whether he would be the right person to do that is a matter for further consideration.
A much more likely situation, and one with which we are trying to deal, is where there may be no doubt that repairs are necessary, but the cri de coeur from the proprietor is, "I do not have the cash, and the whole building will fall down, but I cannot do anything about it. I do not have the pennies." One cannot have the sheriff refusing the right to demand repair by the local authority on the ground that the owner is skint, to put it in good Scottish parlance.
Therefore, the difficulty about the first part of the amendment is that it does not explain what the role of the sheriff is, what tests he would apply, and on what grounds such an application could be argued properly before him. I am not sure that, with the real problem that I have outlined, that right of appeal will take us much further, although I am interested in what the Minister will say.
In new subsection (4), the hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to that problem to some extent by saying that a local authority
may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure".
That is the power to allow discretion to dig the proprietor out of a financial hole, by putting up the money. I am not clear whether we would have to put that power into statute at this point, or whether there would be such a power anyway, and whether, in agreeing to bear part of the expenses, a local authority would be acting intra vires. If that were so, the second part of this interesting amendment would be otiose and we would not have to proceed with the matter.
I ask the Minister to say a word or two about what would happen in the situation that we all have in mind, which I have outlined. Assuming that amendment No. 137 founders, and assuming for the moment that the Act has become law, if the local authority comes along and says that it wants the repairs to be carried out and the proprietor says that he cannot do it, what machinery is there to deal with that? There must be machinery. No doubt I should be familiar with it. Perhaps the Minister will get me out of a difficulty. Is it a matter of compulsory purchase? Is it a section 24 order? How is the matter settled? Will there be an order which allows the work to be carried out by the


local authority and the money to be recovered from the proprietor and if the building is sold thereafter, will any excess over the costs be returned to the original proprietor?
If we are not going down the road outlined by the hon. Member for Dumfries we should know exactly how the system will work in the difficult situation that could arise, which has been worrying those who will be involved.

Mr. Ancram: The difficulties outlined by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in asking what I hope will become a hypothetical question have added to the weight of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said. There would have been difficulties had the provision been left as it was. Although it is a provision which, like many of the others, codifies previous law, it codifies only sections 156 and 18 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which applied only to the former burghs. The previous provision applied only to vaults and other items under the footway or pavement. This clause applies, for obvious reasons, to the whole road. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was right to mention some of the difficulties that could arise. An appeal to the sheriff on the basis of a notice that might be served would depend on whether the criteria for serving the notice had been fulfilled by the conditions of the vault or cellar, or whatever it might be.
The second part of the amendment is good. COSLA was keen on it. It acknowledged the high cost of maintaining cellars under roads, especially as traffic density and vehicle weights have increased significantly over the years. The power to contribute, for which the clause provides, would complement the discretionary power of local roads authorities to contribute to private road works. That is a good way of balancing the two. I hope that the Committee, including the hon. Member for Garscadden will support my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Dewar: I smell a rat. I suspect that it is a put-up job. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on his success, but I should like to press the matter further.
I wish that we were in Committee properly. I apologise for that possibly improper suggestion. You, Mr. Walker, will understand that there is a more leisurely atmosphere upstairs, and not the feeling of pressure that there is in the Chamber.
I take the Minister's point that at the end of the day an appeal to the sheriff would mean that every vault, arch, cellar and tunnel under a road would be in perfectly good nick and not in need of repair and, therefore the owner would not be required to carry out maintenance works.
It is clear that one cannot say to the sheriff, "I wish to appeal against the order because it is unreasonable. This is a rickety old building, which is not worth much. Repairs will cost an enormous sum, which I have not got anyway." An appeal based on personal circumstances is not likely to be entertained by the court. I assume that the local authority will say, "It is all very well drawing our attention to clause 64(4), which gives us the discretionary power to contribute, but we shall not use ratepayers' money in that way."
No doubt the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would applaud such a strict and businesslike approach. There may be no compelling reason for making an exception to that general rule—for example, for a

distinguished part of the new town of Edinburgh. If it is an ordinary building, it may be that no one will use ratepayers' money to save it.
What is the proper procedure? If the building were unsafe, would it be taken down by the local authority? If so, which statute provides for that? It is not provided for in the Bill — perhaps understandably. We should complete the picture before moving on, rejoicing in the success of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

Mr. Ancram: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) by referring him to clause 134(1), which states:
Where by notice under this Act a roads authority require works or excavations to be executed within a specified period then, subject to subsection (3) below, if those works or excavations are not timeously executed they may themselves execute them".
In the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Garscadden, in which someone cannot do the work, it would not be done and the local authority could carry out those works.

Sir Hector Monro: I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting my amendment, without even criticising its drafting. I am more than delighted and hope that it sets a precedent for his acceptance of my other amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

POWER OF ROADS AUTHORITIES TO STOP UP ROADS BY ORDER

Amendment made, No. 138, in page 42, line 19, after 'shall', insert
', except in a case to which section 125 of this Act applies,'. —[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

STOPPING UP OF DANGEROUS ACCESS FROM PUBLIC ROAD TO LAND OR PREMISES

Amendments made: No 139, in page 42, line 26, leave
out 'public road' and insert 'road or proposed road,'

No. 140, in page 42, line 26, leave out 'or premises'. No. 141, in page 42, line 29, leave out 'or premises'.[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

STOPPING UP OF ACCESS TO LAND OR PREMISES FROM CERTAIN ROADS BEING CONSTRUCTED

Amendments made: No. 142, in page 42, line 40, after '68' insert '(1)'.

No. 143, in page 42, line 43, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 144, in page 43, line 4, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 145, in page 43, line 5, at end insert—
'(2) The references in subsection (1) above to a special road and to a main road shall be construed as including references to a proposed such road.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 68, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 66 TO 68

Amendments made: No. 146, in page 43, line 29, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 147, in page 43, line 32, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 148, in page 43, line 35, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 149, in page 44, line 1, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 150, in page 44, line 6, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 151, in page 44, line 7, leave out 'or premises'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

STOPPING UP PRIVATE LAND OR PREMISES BY AGREEMENT

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 44, line 13, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 153, in page 44, line 15, leave out 'or premises'.

No. 154, in page 44, line 15, after 'road', insert or proposed public road,'.

No. 155, in page 44, line 16, leave out 'or premises'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

BRIDGES OVER TUNNELS AND UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 46, line 27, at end insert—
'(5A) The reference in—

(a) subsection (1) above to a trunk road;
(b) subsection (2) above to a special road; or
(c) subsection (3) above to a public road,
shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed trunk, special or public road as the case may be.'.)

No. 157, in page 46, line 37, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) Paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (which provides a procedure for certain cases where works involve the alteration of telecommunication apparatus) shall, subject to subsection (9) below, apply, for the purposes of any works authorised by a scheme made under subsection (3) above, to the roads authority.
(9) Where the roads authority is the Secretary of State, sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (offence) shall be omitted for the purposes of the application of that paragraph to him by subsection (8) above.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 74 and 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

POWER TO DIVERT WATERS WHEN CONSTRUCTING OR IMPROVING PUBLIC ROAD ETC.

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 48, line 12, after
'road', insert '(or proposed public road)'.

No. 159, in page 48, line 44, at end insert—
'(4) In subsection (2)(b) above the reference to body acting under statutory powers includes a reference to the operator of a telecommunications code system (whether or not a body) acting in pursuance of any right conferred by or in accordance with the telecommunications code.'.[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 77 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF VIEW AT CORNERS, BENDS AND JUNCTIONS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in page 53, line 2, after 'fence,', insert 'advertising hoarding'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 161 and 162.

Mr. Ancram: These three amendments correct an omission in clause 81, about which COSLA has expressed concern to us. It said that advertising hoardings on land beside a road can cause as serious an obstruction of view to road users at corners, bends and junctions as can the walls, fences, hedges, trees and shrubs, which are at present covered by the clause. I agree with the convention that advertising structures can adversely affect the view of road users. Therefore, the amendments extend roads authorities' powers to enable them to deal with the problem.
I hope that hon. Members will recognise the sense of COSLA's statement to us, and the amendments, and will support them.

Mr. Dewar: We accept the good sense of what the Minister said, and I have much sympathy with him. Few Opposition Members are likely to be strong defenders of the right to put up advertising hoardings. May I ask the Minister whether such hoardings require planning permission?

Mr. Ancram: Yes, they require planning permission, unless they are mobile hoardings.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 161, in page 53, line 8, leave out 'or fence' and insert fence or advertising hoarding'.

No. 162, in page 53, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (1) above, "advertising hoarding" means a hoarding or similar structure used, or adapted for use, for the display of advertisements.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

CONTROL OF BUILDERS' SKIPS ON ROAD

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 54, line 44, at end insert


'and
(c) a covering which will ensure that materials are not deposited on the road either in passage or when deposited on the road'.
In view of the speed at which you put those clauses and amendments, Mr. Walker, I think you would have made a fortune as an auctioneer in America or on the barrows in Glasgow.
If I am right, the clauses dealing with builders' skips are new provisions in roads legislation because these are a comparatively new element in road traffic. The skips are normally placed on the side of the road for the collection of rubbish. The purpose of my amendment is to impose a third criterion on people who have skips at the side of the road, that the skips should be covered both when they are in passage and when they are stationary at the side of the road.

Mr. Home Robertson: How will they be filled then?

Mr. Maxton: I shall explain to my hon. Friend in a moment exactly what is meant. I do not mean, of course, that the covering would be permanently on the skip because that would be ludicrous. What I mean is that a covering should be placed over it at the end of a day's business so that people other than the user and the owner of the skip cannot deposit refuse in it as well. Hon. Members will be aware that that happens. If someone places a skip at the side of the road for his building rubble, he will find at the end of the week that other people's building rubble, garden refuse, old chairs and goodness knows what have been put in the skip. That is not really my complaint. My complaint is that that rubbish can then spill over into the road and cause a hazard. Therefore, it is better that the skip should be covered while it is not actually in use at the side of the road.
In regard to the second point about the skip being covered when it is being taken from one place to another to be emptied, the Minister may tell me that this is already dealt with by the road traffic legislation in regard to loads on lorries. My wife, having dropped me at the airport recently, was going back along the M8 near Kingston bridge in Glasgow when a skip lorry swerved in front of her. A large piece of timber flew out of the skip, bounced on the bonnet of the car and then, luckily, bounced on to the roof and off it. It could equally have gone through the windscreen of the car and caused a serious accident because both my wife and young son were in the car. There should be strict legislation to ensure that that sort of thing never happens.
We should ensure that the skips are covered when they are not actually in use at the side of the road and also when they are travelling on the road so that materials cannot fly out of them.

Mr. Ancram: All hon. Members will recognise skips in their own areas from the description given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), although I was worried for a moment that he was more concerned with what was going into the skips, while his amendment was concerned with what was coming out of them. He outlined something which is certainly a problem.
The amendment is covered by the present provisions in the Bill. On the first part of the amendment, which deals with a skip while it is being transported, clause 93(1) would apply to the vehicle carrying the skip. That clause makes it an offence to allow material carried on a vehicle
to drop or be deposited on the road so as to create, or be likely to create, a danger or substantial inconvenience to road users".

The person responsible must remove the material
as soon as reasonably practicable
Clause 122 (2) provides that
A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse … deposits anything in a road so as to obstruct the passage of, or to endanger,"—
I think that comes closer to the example the hon. Gentleman gave—
road users commits an offence".
The transporting part is covered.
On the second point, where a skip is deposited on a road, it is subject to the provisions of clause 83, which specify that the consent of the local roads authority must be obtained before a skip can be deposited on a road. In giving consent, the authority may impose conditions which deal with the question of the
care of the contents
while the skip is deposited on the road. Conditions could also be imposed with regard to removal of the skip at the end of the period of permission. That would give an opportunity to make conditions regarding the covering of the contents on the skip's removal. The hon. Gentleman may say that local authorities will not know about those conditions. In the circular following the Bill we shall draw to the local authorities' attention the fact that they are able to make those conditions and control the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised.
Therefore, the intentions of the amendment are adequately covered by the existing provisions and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Clauses 83 and 84 are specifically about builders' skips. As far as I am aware there is no definition of a builder's skip in the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: Clause 83(5).

Mr. Maxton: That deals with a builder's skip, but what about other skips? Waste disposal companies also use skips. Will those be covered by the clauses as well?

Mr. David Marshall: On Second Reading I stated that section 65 of the Transport Act 1982 provided for regulations to be made to prescribe reflective and fluorescent markings for use on skips to improve visibility both in daylight and at night. I asked the Minister to consider that. In reply he said only that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations requiring the marking of such skips. Will he tell us categorically whether the regulations do prescribe reflective and fluorescent markings, and if not, why not?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will find a definition of a builder's skip at page 55, clause 83(5). That says:
'builders' skip' means a container designed to be carried on a road vehicle and to be placed on a road for the removal and disposal of builders' materials, rubble, waste, household and other rubbish or earth.
I hope that he will see from that that it covers any description of a skip that I suspect he can think of.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) asked about markings on skips. Clause 58(1)(a) says that they must be


marked in such manner and with such materials as may, for the purpose of making it or them immediately visible to oncoming traffic".

Mr. David Marshall: What exactly does that mean? Does it include the markings that I described? I understand that the draft regulations do not include them.

Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to consider his remarks about fluorescent markings? I shall write to him when I have done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

POWER TO REMOVE STRUCTURES FROM ROADS

Amendment made: No. 164, in page 56, line 12, leave out from 'require' to end of line 15 and insert
'that within such period as may be specified in the notice the person having control or possession of the structure—
(a) shall remove it; and
if the authority consider reinstatement of the road to be requisite, shall carry out such reinstatement.'.—[Mr. Ancrarni]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: The clause refers to the power to remove structures from roads
where a structure has been erected, deposited or placed on a road otherwise than under or by virtue of an enactment".
What kind of structures are we thinking of here? I am generally curious.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman looks at subsection (2), he will find the answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87

REMOVAL OF ACCIDENTAL OBSTRUCTIONS FROM ROADS

Amendment made: No. 165, in page 56, line 33, leave out 'on' and insert 'onto'—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 88 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

POWER TO FILL IN ROADSIDE DITCHES ETC

Amendments made: No. 166, in page 61, line 13, leave out 'and'.

No. 167, in page 61, line 14, after 'works', insert—
'; and "public road" includes a proposed public road.".'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 92, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93

DEPOSIT OF MUD FROM VEHICLES ON ROADS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 61, line 18, after 'material', insert '(of whatever nature)'.
Clause 93, which the amendment seeks to amend, is designed to remedy the dropping from vehicles of substances which might cause danger or substantial inconvenience to road users. Despite the words "or other material" in subsection (1), the specific reference to mud and farm yard manure in the subsection might be taken to mean that the clause operates only against the depositing of materials by farm vehicles. That is not the case. The amendment will clarify that the clause applies to any type of material dropped from any vehicle.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 169, in page 61, line 19, after 'drop', insert 'onto'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 61, line 21, leave out
', as soon as reasonably practicable' and insert 'immediately'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 171, in page 61, line 22, after 'practicable', insert
'but not more frequently than once per day'.

Mr. Maxton: I appreciate some of the difficulties that might be involved. When one considers the substances that might be dropped on to a road — mud, clay and farmyard manure —there is a sense in which, unless those are removed immediately, the danger that they are to other people on the road lessens as the day goes on. As they dry out, other vehicles break them down, and they spread over the road and become less of a hazard.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who is a farmer, will know about the problem of mud on the road. In my youth—longer ago than I care to remember—I worked for a while as a farm labourer. On one occasion I was on the trailer behind the tractor and I had a run-in with a policeman about the mud being deposited on the road. Thus, I have some direct personal experience. Indeed, I was almost prosecuted for being offensive to the policeman, although luckily I was not. When he said that it was my responsibility to get rid of the mud on the road, I said that it was nothing to do with me, and that he should deal with the person responsible. I must admit that I did not quite use that language, and perhaps that caused me some problems.
However, the policeman was on a bike, and it is the person riding a bicycle who is most at risk if he suddenly comes across very wet mud or manure lying in the middle of a country road. It is easy for a cyclist or motor cyclist to skid on it and injure himself.
I accept that perhaps "immediately" is a bit harsh, but I do not think that "reasonably practicable" goes far enough. Such substances should be cleared up so that they do not create a hazard. If a tractor comes out of a field and deposits mud on the road, there is no reason why someone should not clear it up straight away. It should not be left for any length of time. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian does not seem to be on my side any longer. Of course not, because he is a farmer and this measure will hit him and his farm workers. However, I have seen people


come off motor bikes because of the problems created by mud on our roads. I believe that the provisions in the Bill should be much stronger.

Sir Hector Monro: My amendment is the reverse of amendment No. 170, and I am sure that the Minister is more likely to accept it. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is being quite impractical. He obviously hauled muck a long time ago, and has forgotten what he could, or should have done at the time. I am sure that my hon. Friend has discussed this issue with the National Farmers Union and that he will agree that one must look at it in terms of what is possible.
Often tractors and trailers have to go in and out of fields 20 or 30 times a day carrying silage, turnips, muck or kale. Some of the mud will, of course, be deposited on the road. However, such operations, particularly silage-making, involve team work. There are people cutting and people hauling, and someone just cannot get off the tractor to spend quarter of an hour cleaning the road with a brush and shovel, and putting the mud on to the side. That just is not feasible. We must decide what is practical.

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Sir Hector Monro: I shall just finish my little story. It is important to ensure that the road is clear before nightfall, and before there is any chance of running into the mud in the dark or of the mud freezing. As long as farmers put up "Mud on Road" signs, and are prepared to sweep it up before nightfall, they are doing all that can practicably be done. Any driver can see mud on the road in the daytime, particularly if there is a warning sign.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: Come on, let's have it then.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that sometimes gateways are on bends, and drivers cannot see the mud on the road. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if an accident is caused by mud on the road, the farmer should be insured so that he pays for any damage to people or property?

Sir Hector Monro: Of course not — the hon. Gentleman is once again being impractical. Farmers are not as irresponsible as the hon. Gentleman seems to think; they will not leave mud on corners. Ninety nine per cent. of mud on the road is obvious, especially if there is an advance warning sign.
Let us support what the farmers practically can do, which is to sweep the road before nightfall. They cannot be expected to do that after every trailer load of silage, muck or berries, otherwise the whole operation of farm work will grind to a halt. I want us to consider what is reasonable and possible, which is to do it before the danger period of nightfall. If that is done, I am sure that everyone will be happy.

Mr. David Marshall: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). It is not only farm vehicles that cause a problem — there are problems with constructions sites and so on. It is not simply a case of mud being deposited on roads, but on the access to sites, such as a pavement that the public have to cross.
There have been a number of complaints in my constituency, where considerable redevelopment has taken place, of people in the winter having to wade through

inches of mud to go about their daily business. If a contractor—whether a farmer, haulier or whatever—deposits mud on the road, it is not impossible to clear it immediately.

Mr. Bill Walker: I wish briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It is obvious that Opposition Members have never been potato or berry picking, or they would realise how impractical are their proposals. If we are dealing with the art of the possible—which is surely what we want to do—it is not possible to sweep up after every lorry load of potatoes or berries leaves the field. To do it once per day, and certainly before nightfall, is a sensible and logical way to tackle the problem. No one wants to leave the mud permanently on the road. The important thing is to ensure that we do not put into legislation something that will be impractical and will not be done. The sure way to bring the law into disrepute is to put into statute something that is neither practical nor possible.
I have a farming constituency. I have worked on farms.

Mr. Maxton: What?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that simply because I am a town boy like himself I have never worked on a farm——

Mr. Maxton: I am not a town boy. I was not born in the countryside, but I was brought up there and I worked on a farm for 18 months.

Mr. Walker: I acknowledge that I did not enjoy the privileged upbringing of the hon. Gentleman. However, I have picked many potatoes and berries and I understand the practical problems—[Interruption.] I have picked raspberries — 90 per cent. of the raspberries grown in Europe are grown in my constituency. I have some real experience of what the amendment intends. If I speak with some feeling, it is because I have been approached by my local branch of the National Farmers Union. which recognises that if we put into law something that it cannot do it will bring the law into disrepute.

Mr. David Marshall: Why is it impossible or impractical to clean up on each occasion?

Mr. Walker: It is a small matter of whether we can sell our raspberries at the right price. The time scale is important. I am dealing with the possible. We do not wash to place on the agriculture industry—which is already facing the problems of weather and the time scale in which it has to work—an additional burden which is neither practical nor possible to carry out.

Mr. Home Robertson: I enjoyed listening to this debate, partly as a farmer, and also as a Member for a rural constituency, where tattie growing is an important industry.

My hon. Friend: the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) raises the important point of what is practicable and what is not. If one has a crop of tatties, one may have to get on with the job of lifting them pretty rapidly, and get everybody who is available on to lifting the potatoes, putting them into trailers, getting them out of the field and into the store before they get frosted. When one is doing that job flat out with a limited work force,, it is not practicable to go sweeping the road in between every trailer load.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) say that they have experience of working on farms, and so have I. The three of us would not have taken kindly to our employers telling us to scrape up all the mud every time a trailer went along the road. There is a difficult practical point.
It is inevitable when agricultural work is being carried out, wherever it is, that at certain times of the year, when there is urgent work to be done which involves running tractors in and out of fields, possibly in bad weather, some mud will get on to the roads. On the other hand, we must take into account the interests of other road users and it would be unreasonable if, for weeks on end, the roads were allowed to get into an intolerable state. We have all seen cases where this has happened. I would condemn any farmer who allowed that to happen. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is sensible.
I should like some explanation from the Minister on one point. On one occasion, I put up a sign on the roadside warning motorists that there was mud on the road. The secretary of the local branch of the NFU came by and told me to get the sign off the road, because by putting it there I was accepting liability for putting mud on the road and could therefore find myself legally responsible for any accident that might result. Evidently, the legal advice is, "Do not give warning of mud on the road." If that is legally true, it is unfortunate, because it is desirable that there should be some kind of warning, and people should be encouraged to give warning. I seem to have given encouragement to my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, which was not my intention, but I hope that the Committee will not object to my giving it the benefit of my practical experience in these matters.

Mr. Dewar: We are always delighted and impressed with the practical experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—it is the impractical experiences that worry us. I do not want to prolong the debate. I am somewhat alarmed by the snuffling noises that I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who I think detects a road safety issue, which is usually good for 40 minutes' debate at the drop of an Order Paper.
The Minister may be surprised, but I think that the clause as drafted is satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is an impossiblist. That is a term of abuse in the Labour party, and I mean it in a non-technical sense. I am not trying to suggest that he has joined the Militant Tendency. I am suggesting that the standard that would be imposed on the farming community and others would be unreasonable. On the other hand, to write the words
not more frequently than once a day
would be dangerous, because there might be an unusual set of circumstances in which the road was made impossibly, and visibly, dangerous. If action were contemplated against the culprit, he could say, "I shall clean up once every 24 hours and it does not matter what happens in between each clean up." The clause as drafted provides that the cleaning up should be undertaken on the sensible basis of
as soon as reasonably practicable",

which could be interpreted sensibly by a sheriff's court in an agricultural area. Presumably such a court could apply the test reasonably.
I think that the clause should be left unamended and that all the amendments should be thrown out. I am now in a sensitive state, because whenever I see the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rising to his feet and clutching an Order Paper, I am sure that he is about to tell us that at the end of the day he is glad that the amendment has been accepted, that he is surprised and that he is relieved that the Minister has not criticised the draftsmanship of his own civil servants.

Mr. Ancram: It is unique to hear that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is welcoming the position that I am about to take. Having listened to all the other contributions that have been made to the debate, I think that both he and I are somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis. It might be said that perhaps, as a result, we have it right.
I should tell he hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that this provision deals with a criminal offence and not with the civil law. His question turned on the civil law and I suggest that if he wants it answered he should go to an erudite lawyer such as his hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, who will be able to advise him on his civil liabilities.
The two positions which have been taken are very different and both are to an extent unworkable, one more than the other. For that reason, I contend that the Government have provided the right course. It is obvious that the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is not practicable. It cannot be practicable to impose a duty in all circumstances immediately to remove material that is spilt on the road. That could require the driver of the vehicle possibly to drive backwards to ascertain whether anything was falling off the vehicle and certainly to stop in the road immediately he saw anything falling off and to collect any such material. In the process he would probably cause an even greater hazard to ther road traffic than would have been caused if he had returned later to clear up the material.
I tell my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that there could be circumstances in which it would be necessary more than once a day to remove material which has been dropped in the road. That depends on the quantity of the material dropped, on the weather conditions and on traffic density. I accept that there are circumstances where a specific and strict requirement would be unduly onerous in the normal practice of farming. I must declare my interest in that respect. The words
as soon as reasonably practicable
give sufficiently flexibility for the different circumstances and facts to be taken into account. It seems that the clause as drafted strikes the correct balance and I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Maxton: At one stage the debate was developing into a class war between the master classes of agriculture and the labouring classes with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettlestone (Mr. Marshall) and me representing the labouring class and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) representing the master class.
I accept that the wording of my amendment is defective in the sense that "immediate" is asking for the impossible. However, I am not happy with the clause as it is worded. It could be interpreted even more widely than the amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries. "Reasonably practicable" could be interpreted as being more than 24 hours and the hon. Gentleman's amendment is tighter and provides more control than the clause as drafted. I shall withdraw my amendment but I shall examine the matter again before we consider the Bill on Report to ascertain whether a further amendment should be tabled. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in page 61, line 28, leave out from 'person' to end of line 31 and insert 'who is the owner of the vehicle'.
After the debate on amendment No. 170, amendment No. 172 is even more important. As the clause is worded, a variety of people could be charged. If obstructions are not to be cleared off the road, accidents will happen. Let us put the responsibility — especially in agricultural circles—where it should rest. Responsibility should lie not with the farm manager, the foreman or the farm labourer but with the farmer.

Mr. Ancram: I believe that it is unreasonable to propose that the owner of a vehicle should be held responsible for the actions of the driver when he is not present, especially if the driver chooses not to heed the law. The amendment could lead to considerable injustice and cause considerable complications in the cases of vehicles which had been hired or leased. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

TRADING

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 62, line 39, leave out 'reference' and insert `references'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 174, in page 62, line 39, after 'subsection', insert 'and in subsection (4) below'.

No. 175, in page 62, line 40, leave out 'includes' and insert 'include'.

No. 176, in page 63, line 7, at end insert—
`(aa) the sale or offer or exposure for sale of things in, and as part of, a relevant public market;'.

No. 177, in page 63, line 27, at end insert
relevant public market" means a market or fair —
(a) held by virtue of a grant from the Crown or of prescription or under statutory authority; and
(b) established, held or having its place fixed, by a regional, islands, or district council:
Provided that in establishing or holding, or fixing the place of, the market and in regulating it the council shall consult the roads authority and shall, so far as the council consider it practicable to do so, give effect to any recommendation as respects the market made to them by the roads authority in the interests of road users;'.

Sir Hector Monro: When I was looking through the notes on clause 95, it occurred to me that some of the old historical rights such as the Dumfries rood fair and the Kirkcaldy links market were in jeopardy. Those who regularly attend the Scottish Showmen's Guild luncheon in London know how important, in Scotland, those historical meetings are, and I do not wish to feel that those rights may have been superseded by clause 95.
My amendments have been taken up by COSLA, which also believes that we should make some changes. I believe that the amendments would have the effect of permitting the old fairs to be held without question as well as of ensuring that, because of consultation with the highway authorities and the police, there would be some general coordination before the fairs took place. There has never been any real problem. The amendments would clarify the fact that the fairs could continue to be held but would ensure a greater degree of co-ordination. That would be to the benefit of all, without restricting the right to hold the old fairs which are so important to Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: Coming from my part of the world, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to preserve the ancient charter rights of local authorities. I advise the Committee to accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 174, in page 62, line 39, after 'subsection', insert `and in subsection (4) below'.

No. 175, in page 62, line 40, leave out 'includes' and insert 'include'.

No. 176, in page 63, line 7, at end insert—
`(aa) the sale or offer or exposure for sale of things in, and as part of, a relevant public market;'.

No. 177, in page 63, line 27, at end insert
relevant public market" means a market or fair—
(a) held by virtue of a grant from the Crown or of prescription or under statutory authority; and
(b) established, held or having its place fixed, by a regional, islands, or district council;
Provided that in establishing or holding, or fixing the place of, the market and in regulating it the council shall consult the roads authority and shall, so far as the council consider it practicable to do so, give effect to any recommendation as respects the market made to them by the roads authority in the interests of road users;'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

12 midnight

Mr. Dewar: I should just like the Minister to clarify a matter—I am sure that he can do it in a few seconds. Under clause 95 we assume that the roads authority and the regional council must give permission for a stall from which a person can sell goods on
"(a) any part of a trunk or principal road; or
(b)… within 15 metres of any part of any such road"
Clause 95(4) says that that does not apply in several circumstances, such as
for the sale of newspapers
or when someone has
with a street trader's licence".
Will the Minister confirm that someone who wants to ply his trade will not have to get permission from the regional council and a licence from the district council under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 or similar legislation? We could probe the matter at great length but I should like a blanket assurance that there will be no such duplication.

Mr. Ancram: It is my view that there is no duplication but if I might check that and write to the hon. Gentleman, that would be the safest thing to do in the circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96

CONTROL OF STRAY AND OTHER ANIMALS ON PUBLIC ROADS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in page 63, line 33, leave out `public'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment No. 179, in page 63, line 34, after `countryside', insert
`or on account of damage to fences or dykes'.
Government amendments Nos. 180 to 183 and 235.

Mr. Ancram: We have reconsidered clause 96 in the light of comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and have decided that it would be desirable to make three changes, to which the amendments give effect.
First, since the straying of an animal is a safety hazard which should be prevented on any road, the clause will no longer be confined to public roads.
Secondly, again bearing in mind the need to secure safety on the roads, the police will be given the same powers under the clause as roads authorities have—in the same way as they have been given dual powers on the removal of builders' skips and other hazards.
Finally, it is proposed to reinstate a provision, which existed in the previous relevant legislation, making it an offence to allow an animal to stray on to a road. It appears that the mere existence of such an offence is likely to have a salutary effect on those responsible for animals, but to ensure that nobody is unjustly convicted through no fault of his own—I hope that this appeals to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—the amendments make it a defence to prove that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the animal straying. These changes are all proposed in the interests of safety and I trust that they will be accepted.

Sir Hector Monro: I am worried that there is a strong possibility in the countryside, especially in arable areas where there are fences everywhere, of a fence being broken. My hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that bulls sometimes look lovingly over the road at heifers or cows in season and break fences, thus getting on the road and allowing other stock to get. on the road. That is quite normal in the countryside and must be expected. It would be wrong if such an accident happened, the beast was whipped away in a police van, sold in the market the next day and the bill for doing so was sent to the farmer. I accept that amendment No. 178 goes some way to meet my point, but the Bill as drafted is harder on farmers than the present law. Today, the accidental straying of livestock on to the road is regarded as an accident, and if somebody runs into a cow, that is just too bad.

Mr. Maxton: Dreadful.

Sir Hector Monro: I hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) rumbling, but what would he do if a cow broke out of a field in the middle of the night and he knew nothing about it? People driving in the countryside expect to see livestock on the road. They are aware of that possibility and await the occurrence. I fear that we are changing the law for no good reason.

Mr. Bill Walker: On Second Reading I drew attention to the problems— indeed, to the impossibility of the situation that existed — at Glenshee and spoke of the difficulty of trying to catch the sheep, and so on. I therefore welcome amendment No. 183, particularly as I can speak from personal experience.
My children's ponies were found on the roadway some miles from our home. My daughters had, as always, put the lock on the gate, but some vandals had destroyed the lock and let the ponies out on to the road. One could reasonably have said that my children had taken reasonable precautions to protect their ponies. Under the clause as it was originally drafted they could have been charged—being the owner of the property, I suppose that I would have been charged — with not properly taking care of the ponies, when, as I have explained, we had taken all reasonable precautions.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his welcome of amendment No. 183.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) must realise that his amendment No. 179 would prevent a local roads authority from seizing and detaining stock where that stock had escaped from a field the fences of which were damaged, no matter if the damaged fences had been known to the fanner for a substantial time. That would make it impossible for the local roads authority, or the police, to deal with a large majority of straying animal cases. His proposal would also be unacceptable because of the safety hazard. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his amendment.
However, my hon. Friend has, in my view, made out a case in the circumstances where a farmer was not aware of the damage and where this might be regarded as a harsh measure to take against him. I shall consider that and refer to it again on Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 180, in page 63, line 35, at end insert
`or by a constable; and the person so leaving an animal or allowing it so to stray commits an offence.'.
No. 181, in page 63, line 38, after 'authority', insert
`, or as the case may be from the police authority,'.
No. 182, in page 63, line 40, after 'authority', insert
`or as the case may be police authority'.
No. 183, in page 64, line 4, at end insert
`or as the case may be police authority.
(4A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for a person accused of allowing an animal to stray onto a road to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent such straying.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I found the callous attitude towards road users, as opposed to animals, expressed by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) astonishing. Whereas we expect, as we drive in the countryside, that


hedges, fences and gates will be in good order, he claims that we should be prepared, on rounding every corner, to find a cow standing in the middle of the road.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

PREVENTION OF FLOW OF WATER ETC. ONTO ROADS

Amendments made: No. 184, in page 64, line 8, leave out `lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 185, in page 64, line 9, leave out
`those lands and heritages are'
and insert 'that land is'.

No. 186, in page 64, line 9, leave out 'constitute' and insert 'constitutes'.

No. 187, in page 64, line 12, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 188, in page 64, line 23, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert `land'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 98 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT OR PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ROADS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 189, in page 66, line 28, at end insert—
'(5) In the foregoing provisions of this section any reference to—
(a) public road shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed public road;
(b) a trunk road shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed public road which is to be a trunk road; and
(c)a special road shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed public road which is to be a special road.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 102, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103

FURTHER PROVISION AS REGARDS ACQUISITION OF AND FOR CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT ETC. OF PUBLIC ROADS

Amendments made: No. 190, in page 66, line 31, after `road', insert '(or proposed public road)'.

No. 190A, in page 66, line 40, after 'road', insert '(or proposed public road)'.

Clause 103, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105

ACQUISITION OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH CATTLE- GRIDS

Amendment made: No. 191, in page 68, line 29, leave out 'require' and insert 'acquire'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107

DISTANCE LIMITS FOR PURPOSES OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

Amendment made: No. 192, in page 69, line 3, at end insert—
`(4) In subsection (3) above, and in Schedule 5 to this Act, references to a road and to a public road shall be construed, respectively, as including references to a proposed road and to a proposed public road.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109

CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS FOR SPECIAL AND TRUNK ROADS SCHEMES AND ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 193, in page 70, line 28, at end
insert—
'(3) In the foregoing provisions of this section, references to special roads or to trunk roads shall be construed as including references to proposed public roads which are to be special roads or as the case may be are to be trunk roads.'. — [Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 109, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 110 and 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112

VESTING OF SOLUM OF STOPPED UP ROAD

Amendment made: No. 194, in page 73, line 14, after `owners of, insert `the'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 112, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 to 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO NEEDS OF DISABLED AND BLIND IN EXECUTING WORKS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 195, in page 75, line 40, at end insert—
'(5) In the foregoing provisions of this section, references to a road shall be construed as including references to a proposed road.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117

POWER TO OBTAIN ROAD-MAKING MATERIALS

Amendments made: No. 196, in page 75, line 43, after `road', insert
`or of repairing a prospective public road'.

No. 197, in page 75, line 44, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (1) above "prospective public road" has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 118 and 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

POWER TO CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS AS REGARDS ROADS CONSTRUCTION ETC.

Amendment made: No. 198, in page 77, line 19, leave out
'29A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967'

and insert
'34 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'. — [Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122

MISCELLANEOUS SUMMARY OFFENCES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Marshall: I shall briefly ask the Minister some questions in relation to the clause. The penalty for committing an offence under subsection (2) is that for a level 2 offence, and carries a maximum fine of £100. However, sections 148(c) and 161(1) of the Highways Act 1980, on which the provisions are based, carry a level 3 fine of a maximum £400 fine. Why is there such a discrepancy?
Unlike section 161(1) of the 1980 Act, this subsection does not refer expressly to injury to road users. What is the reason for that omission? Can the Minister tell us any of the Government's further views on abating or removing the obstructions, as per the undertaking given by the Lord Advocate in the other place on 29 March? Finally, does subsection (5) mean the introduction of a blanket ban on parking on footpaths, footways and verges? If so, is it necessary? Will it not be very expensive? Is it possible or desirable to enforce it?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman asked a welter of questions, and I did not have time to note them all. I realise that they are important, and that he will wish to know the answers before Report. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him.

Mr. Maxton: I should like to ask the Minister why road traffic offences are included in a Bill about roads, and not in a Bill about road traffic offences.

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. If he believes that the Bill has been improperly drafted, he should have taken up the matter another time.

Mr. Maxton: Some of the amendments that I tabled were ruled out of order because they were considered to cover road traffic offences, not roads, yet in the Bill there are items concerned with road traffic offences.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is that not a point of order?

The Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was raising that matter with me. I doubt that he was.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125

SAVING FOR BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Amendments made: No.200, in page 80, leave out from 'any' in line 6 to end of line 12 and insert
`rights conferred by or in accordance with the telecommunications code on the operator of a telecommunications code system or any duty of any such operator under that code; or
(b) applies to any telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purpose of any such system;'.

No. 201, in page 80, line 17, leave out from 'road' to `shall' in line 21 and insert
`any telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of a telecommunications code system, the operator of that system'.

No. 202, in page 80, line 22, leave out 'line' and insert `apparatus'.

No. 203, in page 80, line 22, at end insert
; but any person entitled to land over which the road subsisted may require the alteration of the apparatus.'

No. 204, in page 80, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

No. 205, in page 80, line 30, leave out
not being a trunk road'.

No. 206, in page 80, line 33, leave out from 'road' to end of line 7 on page 81 and insert
`any telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of a telecommunications code system, the roads authority shall be entitled to require the alteration of the apparatus. This subsection does not have effect so far as it relates to the alteration of any telecommunication apparatus for the purpose of authority's works as defined in Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
(4A) Paragraph 1 (2) of the telecommunications code (alteration of apparatus to include moving, removal or replacement of apparatus) shall apply for the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (4) above as it applies for the purposes of that code.
(4B) Paragraph 21 of the telecommunications code (restriction on removal of telecommunication apparatus) shall apply in relation to any right conferred by this section to require the alteration, moving or replacement of any telecommunications apparatus as it applies in relation to a right to require the removal of such apparatus.'.—[Mr. Ancram]

Clause 125, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 126 and 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128

RESTRICTION OF POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IN WHOM SEWER IS VESTED

Amendment made: No. 207, in page 83, line 11, leave out `126,' and insert '127,)'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 128, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 129 to 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

REVOCATION AND VARIATION OF CERTAIN SCHEMES AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 208, in page 89, line 3, after `may', insert
subject to subsection (5) below and to subsection (7)(i) of the said section 5,'.

No. 209, in page 89, line 26, at end insert—
'(5) Where a scheme under section 7 or 73(3) of this Act is revoked at any time before the special road, bridge or tunnel is opened for the purposes of through traffic, Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall have no effect as regards the revocation but, within


28 days of the revocation, notice of it shall be published by the Secretary of State in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 139 to 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No 210, in page 91, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert
'"footpath" shall be construed in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (b), and "footway" in accordance with subsection (2), below:'.

No. 211, in page 91, line 26, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.

No. 212, in page 91, line 27, leave out 'lands and heritages' and insert 'land'.

No. 213, in page 91, line 27, leave out 'that road' and insert 'it'.

No. 214, in page 92, line 16, at end insert—

'"operator", in relation to a telecommunications code system, has the same meaning as in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;'.

No. 215, in page 92, line 26, after 'roads', insert '(whether existing or proposed)'.

No. 216, in page 92, line 28, leave out 'premises' and insert land'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 92, line 32, after 'riders', insert
'or which complies with the requirements specified in Regulation 4 of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983'.
This is a clarifying amendment. The well-known Lothian cycling campaign called Spokes, of which all hon. Members will know, recommended that we should include electrically-assisted pedal cycles under the definition of pedal cycle.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No 218, in page 92, line 33, at end insert—
'"proposed road" means (without prejudice to the definition in this subsection of "proposed public road") a new road in course of construction, or proposed to be constructed, by or on behalf of any person;
proposed public road" means either—

(a) a new road in course of construction, or proposed to be constructed, by or on behalf of a roads authority; or
(b) an existing road which is a prospective public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;'.

No. 219, in page 93, line 2, after first 'road', insert 'or proposed road,'

No. 220, in page 93, line 2, leave out second 'road'.

No. 221, in page 93, line 7, after 'road', insert
'(whether existing or in course of construction)'.

No. 222, in page 93, line 9, after '(5)', insert
'(or to be provided by him under section 7(5)(a) or (b))'.

No. 223, in page 93, line 10, after 'constructed', insert '(or to be constructed)'.

No. 224, in page 93, line 21, leave out 'British Telecommunications' and insert
', except in section 126 and 133(4) of this Act, the operator of any telecommunications code system'.

No. 225, in page 93, line 24, at end insert—

'"telecommunication apparatus", "the telecommunications code" and "telecommunications code system" have the same meanings as in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;"'.

No. 226, in page 93, line 29, leave out `54(1)' and insert '64(1)'.

No. 227, in page 93, line 30, leave out '1967' and insert '1984'.

No. 228, in page 94, line 19, after 'road', insert 'or proposed road'.

No. 229, in page 94, line 34, at end insert—
'(4) Any reference in this Act to apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers shall, in relation to the operator of a telecommunications code system, have effect as a reference to telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of that system.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145 to 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 150

SHORT TITLE COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made, No. 230, in page 97, line 8, after `section', insert 'and sections 35 to 39'.

No. 231, in page 97, line 9, at end insert
'(in this Act referred to as "the commencement of this Act").
 (2A) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint—

sections 35 to 39;
section 149(3) and Schedule 10 in so far as they relate to the Transport Act 1981.'.—[Mr. Dean.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 232, in page 97, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
The amendment removes the subsection inserted in another places in order to preserve the privilege of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 150, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

PROVISION OF BUS SHELTERS, ETC. BY LOCAL ROADS AUTHORITIES

'.-(1) In the Local Government (Omnibus Shelters and Queue Barriers) (Scotland) Act 1958, for the words "local authority" wherever they occur other than the places mentioned in subsection (2) below there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority".

(2) The expected places referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the first place where the words "local authority" occur in section 1(2) of the said Act of 1958;
(b) section 3(2) of that Act;
(c) the first place where those words occur in section 4(1) of that Act; and
(d) section 7(1) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 2 and Government amendment No. 243.

Mr. Allan Stewart: This amendment implements the recommendation of the Stodart committee, as supported by COSLA, that responsibility for the provision and


maintenance of bus shelters should be confined to regional or islands councils as part of their general responsibilities for local transport matters. The amendment is therefore needed to regulate the position and provide for uniform practice throughout the country. It is consequential and allows property or staff to be transferred.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH LIGHTING AND BUS SHELTERS, ETC.

`.—(1) This section applies where, by virtue of section 34 or [Provision of bus shelters, etc., by local roads authorities] of this Act, a function which was, before the commencement of this Act, exercisable by a district council (whether or not concurrently with another local authority) is exercisable by a local authority.

(2) An officer of a district council who, in the period immediately before the coming into force of this Act, was wholly or mainly employed in duties pertaining, irrespective of how his office or employment was formally described, to a function referred to in subsection (1) above, shall be transferred into the employment of the local roads authority; but such transfer shall not affect any legal right or entitlement of the officer.

(3) Subject to any such agreement as is provided for in subsection (4) below, any heritable or moveable property of a district council which is wholly or mainly used, or held, by the council in relation to the discharge of a function referred to in subsection (1) above shall transfer to and vest in the local roads authority.

(4) If or in so far as the district council and the local roads aurhority agree that property shall not be transferred by subsection (3) above, that subsection shall have no effect as regards the property; but the property shall no longer be used or held by the district council in relation to the discharge of a function referred to in subsection (1) above.

(5) Any dispute between a district council and a local roads authority as to whether or when a transfer falls to take place under subsection (2) or (3) above or as to any other matter concerning such a transfer shall be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Court of Session, or the sheriff, on the application of either party.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

COMPENSATION WHERE INTEREST IN LAND SUBJECT TO HERITABLE SECURITY

`Subjection (4) of section 167 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (provisions as to compensation where an interest in land is subject to a heritable security) shall apply in relation to such compensation as is mentioned in section 69(6), 70(1), 81(7) or 86(2), or as may be provided for in an agreement under section 51(2), of this Act as the said subsection (4) applies to compensation to which the said section 167 applies.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the new clause is to provide that where compensation is payable, under those clauses of the Bill to which it refers, for adverse effects on land, the payment should be made to the mortgagee, if any, of the land, who will usually be a building society. The mortgagee must

then apply the sum towards reduction of the mortgage. Thus the interests of all concerned are protected and the new clause should commend itself to hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

SAVING FOR, AND EXTENSION OF SECTION 8o OF, HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974

' —(1) Nothing in this Act authorises the carrying out of any operation in contravention of "the relevant statutory provisions" defined in Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 or in contravention of any regulation made, or prohibition notice or improvement notice served, under or by virtue of that Act or of those provisions.

(2) For the purposes of the application of section 80(1) of the said Act of 1974 (general power to repeal or modify Acts and instruments where such repeal or modification appears expedient in consequence of or in connection with any provision made by or under Part I of that Act), this Act shall be deemed an Act passed before that Act.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

POWER TO CONTRIBUTE TO, OR CARRY OUT, WORK ON PRIVATE ROADS

'—(1) A local roads authority may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure incurred by a person in making up or maintaining a private road; and may, without prejudice to section 14 of this Act, at their own expense carry out any repair which they consider necessary in relation to a private road after giving such notice as is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt—

(a) a local roads authority do not incur responsibility for making up or maintenance of the private road by reason only of their acting under subsection (1) above;
(b)the carrying out of work by a local roads authority under subsection (1) above does not create any implication that the private road, on completion of the work, is of a standard satisfactory to the authority for the purposes of section 15(1)(b) of this Act.'.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

DRAINING OF SURFACE WATER

Where a highway authority diverts surface water on to agricultural land it shall be the duty of the authority to connect that water to the field drainage system if one is available.'.—[Sir Hector Monro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am looking forward to a grand slam finish and a hat-trick of acceptances by my hon. Friend the Minister.
This is an important new clause, because at present the highway authority can divert surface water from any road and willy nilly put it in the adjacent field. That is completely unsatisfactory and is weighted against agricultural interests. As my hon. Friend the Minister stands up for small businesses and free enterprise, he will wish to support the farmers against the bureaucratic attitudes of the highway authorities.
Where there is a perfectly adequate field drainage system, the highway authority should be obliged to pipe surface water, by fire clay pipe or by field tiles, into the field drainage system for the benefit of the field and to get rid of the surface water quickly. My hon. Friend will see the absolute justice in the new clause, and I am sure that he will have no problem in accepting it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has expressed on behalf of the farming community, but I assure him that the existing provisions of the Bill ensure that the interests of the owners and occupiers of land affected by road drainage works are taken fully into account.
Before exercising their powers under clause 30 to construct drains or divert surface water into existing drains, the roads authorities are required to serve notice on the owner and the occupier of the land affected. If they object to the proposed works within 28 days of being notified, and do not subsequently withdraw their objections, the Secretary of State must consider the objections before he either proceeds with the works, if it is one of his roads, or gives consent. In some circumstances, compensation may be payable to the owner or occupier of the land for any damage sustained.
Connection to field drains is often not the best solution for disposing of surface water from a road, since they are likely to have a limited capacity and could soon back up, with the result that the field would become waterlogged. On major road schemes the general practice is to provide a network of drains which discharge into a natural watercourse which has the capacity to cope.
I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that, in relation to trunk road improvements, the Scottish Development Department will continue to do its best to get rid of surface water without creating problems for farmers. The safeguards in clause 30, to which I have referred, should ensure that local authority schemes are sensitively designed.
In the light of those remarks, and especially under clause 30, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the new clause.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend implied that clause 30 would cover this, but surely it relates only to new discharges. I am considering the 1,000,001 discharges that have been around for a long time, even at the expense of waterlogging fields. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that the clause applies to all water discharges, whether existing or in the future.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Clause 30 applies to new discharges, but I shall check and write to my hon. Friend.

Sir Hector Monro: At least until Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

CONTROL OVER CARRIAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON ROADS

`A local roads authority may prohibit the carriage of specified hazardous materials on any road in their area if they are satisfied that the carriage of such materials could endanger either the local population or other road users'.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am sorely tempted to say that this is a purely technical new clause and sit down, in the hope that the Minister will accept it. We seem to have been accepting a lot of new clauses and amendments on such a pretext up to now. I wonder whether I might get away with the same trick as the Minister has been deploying.
The purpose of the new clause is to enable roads authorities to
prohibit the carriage of specified hazardous materials in any road in their area if they are satisfied that the carriage of such materials could endanger either the local population or other road users.
I welcome you back to the chair, Mr. Armstrong. We have had an interesting succession of chairmen in the Committee. Local roads authorities have a legitimate interest in the types of materials which may be carried on roads within their areas. We have heard some disturbing accounts in recent years of accidents involving hazardous loads where there has been a spillage or leakage of gas or an explosive or corrosive material which can cause a serious hazard to other road users, neighbouring people and the emergency services who have to deal with the incident.
I remember an incident a year ago on the boundary of my constituency, when a vehicle caught fire. Noxious fumes were given off which caused considerable illness to some of the firemen attending the accident. Indeed, the fumes drifted over such distances that fishermen in vessels offshore also had to be taken to hospital shortly afterwards. There was a problem because no one knew what the material was or the nature of the gas that was being given off. I entered into correspondence with the Department of Transport after that incident and I confess that my fears were not allayed.
It is desirable that local roads authorities should be able to designate which materials may or may not be carried on certain roads. Obviously hazardous materials may have to be transported around the country, but roads authorities should be able to designate which roads may be used. Presumably they would designate roads which were least dangerous from the point of view of traffic and with the smallest number of people living in the neighbourhood so that if there were to be an accident as few people as possible would be affected.
A number of roads authorities and regional councils in Scotland which are controlled by the Labour party have rightly declared themselves to be nuclear-free zones. It is legitimate that such roads authorities should be able to prevent the carriage of nuclear weapons through their area. We have already had the spectacle of American army vehicles, not in Scotland yet although I suppose it could happen, carrying cruise missiles on public roads in England. I do not want to see anything like this happening in Scotland.
I believe in local democracy. If the population of a given area has elected a roads authority which does not want nuclear weapons to be carried around within that area, it should be able to enforce that view. That is one of the objectives of the new clause. I am sure the Minister will accept this modest new clause.

Mr. Bruce: I should like to support the spirit of the new clause in as much as there is concern at the lack of


regulations about the transportation of hazardous materials. Within the last two or three years a butane tanker caught fire at five o'clock in the morning in the middle of Aberdeen. I spoke to the then chief constable about it. He said that it was something of which he had no previous experience; it was the most horrific material that he had ever come across. The fire was not extinguishable. It burned for six hours, including during the rush hour. The firemen were unable to put it out. The Chief Constable said that if he had known that such a substance was to come through his city he would have sought to prevent it because such an accident could have been very serious. Whether or not the drafting of the new clause is acceptable, there is a serious point behind it, of which the Minister should take account.

Mr. Wilson: It is a pity that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) put the argument the way that he did in introducing the new clause. Like him, I am completely in favour of nuclear-free zones and do not want to see such materials transported through the country. However, that is a matter of state policy. In the final stages of the Roads (Scotland) Bill we are unlikely to have any major changes, particularly as the Secretary of State for Energy, who popped in for a while, has now left.
The Committee's attention has been directed to an important aspect. It is desirable that there should be some control, however that may be expressed in drafting terms, over lorry loads of noxious and dangerous chemicals and gases. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) wishes to intervene, perhaps she will do so.
Those of us who are aware of the need to make sure that the areas where the public have access are safe, to make sure that special cargoes are regulated, and that there is some local consultation, feel that the hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I regret that to some extent he took the argument away from the area to which it properly related. I hope that the Minister will address his attention to the problem in view of the factual accounts that we have been given by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that when my hon. Friend considers the new clause he will bear in mind that the country areas would find it extremely difficult if some of the more combustible materials that have been touched on were not transported. I can envisage a situation where butane gas would not be available to the country areas. I can also visualise a situation where restrictions on tankers carrying petroleum — one of the most hazardous substances that is moved around and the higher the octane the more combustible it is—would present enormous problems.
The Ministry of Defence, by virtue of its task, is required to move around weapons, weapon systems and ammunition, not necessarily nuclear. It does that all the time in order to carry out its duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Home Robertson: I suppose that it is too much to expect that the hon. Gentleman should have read the new clause before he made a speech about it. It says:
A local roads authority may prohibit the carriage of specified hazardous materials on any road in their area".
Obviously no reasonable local roads authority would impose such controls in the way that he is suggesting.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, I was responding to comments made by others who have taken part in the debate. One could not always consider that views held by others were reasonable. It depends which way one looks at a matter. Some Labour Members accuse Conservative Members of being unreasonable. Many local authorities may take action that I would judge to be unreasonable.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I appreciate the concern of the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on the carriage of dangerous or hazardous loads on roads in local authority areas, and the Committee will have a great deal of sympathy for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
Clause 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Bill consolidates existing provisions. Those provisions empower local roads authorities, by traffic regulation order, to specify routes for vehicular traffic of any specified class or to prohibit such traffic from using a road.
In the light of those powers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be appropriate for him to seek leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and for having made it clear that local authorities evidently have powers similar to those that I seek. The last thing I would want to do is to duplicate existing powers.
In view of the fact that the Minister has indicated that local authorities have, and will continue to have, adequate powers under legislation to control the movement of hazardous materials on specified roads, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

TOLLS ON ROADS OR BRIDGES

'It shall not be permissible for a local roads authority or the Secretary of State to impose a charge on any vehicle to travel on any public road, highway or bridge in Scotland'. — [Mr. Maxton]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At 5 pm, on a point of order, I said that it was regrettable that the Bill had become so extensive in terms of the number of amendments tabled to it that it was nonsense to continue discussion of it in Committee on the Floor of the House and that it should have gone upstairs where it could have been considered in more detail.
In the new clause, I raise the important matter of the imposition of tolls on certain bridges in Scotland. I begin by quoting a brief extract from a document:
Income from North Sea oil will be used to create a Scottish Development Fund with a number of important objectives. This Fund will be used to ensure that every part of Scotland derives the fullest benefit from oil. In those areas most directly affected, the additional services needed by oil development will be assisted by the Fund … The Fund will also be devoted to making good any damage to the Scottish countryside resulting from oil development. And it will make possible a major programme of renovation and replacement of out-of-date housing and obsolete industry. The Fund will be used to abolish the tolls on the Forth, Tay and Erskine Bridges; and it will have wider purposes, through the provision of better amenities and new facilities for sport and recreation—Hampden Park is high on our list.


Hampden Park, of course, is in my constituency.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that that quotation comes from the general election document of October 1974,
Freedom for all the people—A charter for Scotland
which was printed and published by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist central office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten years ago."] I hear Conservative Members muttering "Ten years ago." It is, indeed, 10 years ago. We all accept that the Conservative party has moved a long way in those 10 years in its philosophy.
Those Conservative Members who are most concerned about the economic policy that the Government have undertaken should concern themselves with what has happened with regard to toll bridges in Scotland. The question to be considered is whether, since the bridges were opened, the imposition of tolls has helped to do anything towards getting rid of the loan burdens of the bridges. With the exception of the Tay bridge, that is not the case. The loans were taken out of the Consolidated Fund, and interest is payable on the loans. With the exception of the Tay bridge, the standing debt on most bridges is now considerably greater than it was when the bridges were first built.
In September 1964, the cost of the Forth bridge was £10 million. The loan debt now outstanding after nearly 20 years of imposing tolls is £21,750,000. That debt is due to be written off by September 1994, but there is no way that it will be. It will be much larger by then, because the bridge cannot collect enough money even to pay the outstanding interest. Each year, more interest is added.
12.45 am
Therefore, it is becoming more and more expensive to run the Forth bridge as a toll bridge. That is even more true of the Erskine bridge. It would be cheaper if the Government stopped collecting tolls, wrote off the debts on the bridges, and treated them as a normal part of the roads system. I see Conservative Members nodding and shaking their heads, so there must be some division of opinion on their Benches. In terms of public expenditure, a case can no longer be made for continuing with such tolls.
Furthermore, the tolls should be abolished because they have an adverse effect on industry. I see that some Conservative Members do not agree, but FIDA—a very reputable marketing research and investigative organisation in Edinburgh—did some research into the effect of the Forth road bridge on the Fife area. It has been shown that it has a detrimental effect on industry in that area. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would want to abolish tolls. After all, he believes in free trade and the free movement of goods. Tolls are an unfair burden on trade in certain parts of the country. That will not be true of the hon. Gentleman's area, because there is no toll bridge taking goods into Stirling.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing that the Forth road bridge disadvantages Fife, why the devil did we build it in the first place?

Mr. Maxton: It is not the bridge that is disadvantageous to Fife. On the contrary, it is to its advantage. However, there should be a free bridge, because tolls create problems for industry in Fife. That is also true of the Tay bridge. Indeed, I think that the hon.

Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will make that point. The hon. Member for Tayside, North would also probably agree, because his area relies quite heavily on the traffic over the Forth road bridge.
I am aware that it is late, so I shall be brief. People resent being held up on such bridges. The other day I heard of someone who worked in Clydebank, lived in Bearsden, but drove through the Clyde tunnel and back every day rather than use the shorter route over the Erskine bridge because of the toll.

Mrs. McCurley: But Clydebank and Bearsden are on the same side of the river.

Mr. Maxton: I am sorry; he lived in Eastwood. But wherever he lived, he went through the tunnel.
I am sure that there is support for the general proposition that we have a free roads system, on which there are no tolls. There is no logical reason to impose a toll, especially an uneconomic toll, on bridges as opposed to roads.
If people are to pay for using roads, that should apply throughout the country. If not, why impose it on road users in certain geographical areas, and not others?

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to speak because I have a constituency interest in what happens to the Tay road bridge. While it is difficult to ignore the charm and allure of free travel over the bridge, I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that when the bridge was built it was under specific and agreed conditions that it would be financed and funded in a certain way. It was not a Government decision to build the bridge, but a local authority decision to which the Government acquiesced.
It is important that, if we change the rules as they affect that bridge we must ensure that Tayside region is not left to foot the bill for the maintenance of the bridge. If the Tayside region were faced with that, the ratepayers in Angus and Perthshire would have to meet the cost of maintenance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be acceptable to them.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to an election promise in 1974. I remind him, that we did not win that election. The Labour party—supported by the Liberals in the Lib-Lab pact and, occasionally in the Lobby by the Scottish national party—indulged in profligate polices between 1974 and 1979 that resulted in the International Monetary Fund being required. That meant that when the Conservative party came to Government the economic position of Britain was such that many observations and pledges made in 1974 were no longer relevant. It was a different ball game. That is not to say that, if the rules were changed, and tolls could be removed from the Tay bridge, that would not be an enticing thought. But I would not support that if the ratepayers of Tayside had to fund the maintenance of the bridge for ever.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for once has a point. However, there is little justification for the toll system. Once we had turnpikes and people paid to use the roads. That concept was reintroduced with the construction of some bridges. There is no logical difference between a bridge and a stretch of motorway. Motorways, especially those that look like bridges, can be expensive to build. For example, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned the M25 orbital road that will be about 125 miles long. No


doubt it is a necessary road to deal with traffic congestion. The cost of it is phenomenal. It will cost £875 million, and the section that opened in January cost £120 million, or £15 million a mile.
We are dealing with historical costs, and the evidence given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is that the bridges, bar one, the Tay bridge, are unable to finance themselves out of tolls, and, as a consequence, the debt is rising. That is similar to the problem that we used to have in the House of Commons Refreshment Department, when debts were accumulated for a long period, and then the Treasury had to come in and wipe out the debts, amid some embarrassment, and then the whole process started again—until the regime of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who succeeded at last in making it into a profitable enterprise.
There are a number of bridges in Scotland serving different purposes. For example, the Friarton bridge is much more useful to the city of Dundee than the Tay bridge. It is the people of Fife, particularly the commuters, who make use of the Tay bridge, while Friarton bridge is used by those of us who travel to Edinburgh, as it is a faster route. I am sure that that benefits the constituents of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.

Mr. Bill Walker: The logic for building the Tay bridge was to open up north Fife for the people who wished to visit Dundee, and it was done by agreement as to the funding and financing. That agreement cannot just be swept aside as if it had not been entered into. It was, and the commitments were fully known. It is wrong to suggest that they should suddenly be discarded.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman's party had in its October 1974 manifesto a proposition that it intended to disregard the original financing arrangements. One of the things that has annoyed that party is the loss of that election, and since then it has not been attracted to taking up that cross. Nevertheless, it is simple and possible for Governments, should they so decide that it would be sensible and financially appropriate, as it would be in the case of toll bridges, to accept the financial burden and make them free. That is the logical way in which these changes should be dealt with.
Frequently in the past the argument has been that tolls are justified because of the exceptional benefit that accrues from estuarial crossings. I have letters to that effect from the Government. However, compared to the general benefits of motorways, there is not all that greater benefit from estuarial crossings. We get benefits from good roads. Nobody would doubt that, so why should one stretch of motorway have no charges, while others do? I suggest to the hon. Member for Tayside, North, in the interests of his constituents, and of those who use the Forth bridge—more of them will be affected by the Forth bridge tolls than by the Tay bridge tolls — that he should press his Government to relieve those people from the effect of tolls.
The alternative, apart from the Tay bridge, which has exceptional problems, as we know, but has recently been able to bear the costs of the original capital loan, is that the deficit will increase. I do not know of anyone who thinks that the Erskine road bridge would generate the volume of traffic that will enable it to pay for itself. It is

a glorified white elephant. The Clyde tunnel, which is toll-free, serves the same purpose as the Erskine road bridge, but one goes underground at enormous cost, and the other goes overhead at enormous cost. Both of them were built to relieve west Strathclyde of the extreme congestion of traffic that those of us who lived in the area at the time will remember all too well.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has made a simple but sound case and I ask the Government to consider acting upon it. This is not purely a Scottish matter — hon. Members will know that I usually like to explore such matters—because a strong group has been established among English Members that seeks the abolition of tolls on estuarial crossings. For once, hands are crossing the border. The abolition of tolls is a sound proposition if we want a coherent transport policy. If that is our wish, we must get rid of these stupid tolls, which are unfairly inflicted upon those who live in certain counties where there are major estuarial crossings.

1 am

Mr. Bruce: I support the new clause. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) began his remarks with a reference to the Conservative party's manifesto of 1974. I remember that manifesto especially well as I opposed the then Conservative candidate for North Angus and Mearns, who subsequently represented the constituency. The manifesto presented to the electorate contained a bribe which did not come off, as Conservative Members have admitted. However, the Conservative party won the subsequent elections and the people in the highlands and islands thought that a Conservative Government would take up their commitment on road equivalent tariffs. The Conservatives do not have the excuse that they lost the 1979 and 1983 general elections, and they have reneged on their commitment.
The toll policy is inconsistent. It is reasonable for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to remind the Committee of the Tay bridge agreement, but it is not reasonable to say that the arrangement cannot be changed. The House of Commons has some powers, and it could make changes to the arrangement if it so wished. It would be to the advantage of all who live in the area of the bridge if that were done.
Why should some crossings be tolled and others not? There is no systematic policy or logic in the imposition of tolls. It seems unreasonable that a motorway around London costing over £1,000 million should be toll-free while some relatively low-cost roads, which happen to cross water, should be subject to tolls. One exception is the Friarton bridge. The policy is a shambles.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has not been in his place to hear the debate on the Tay road bridge and to present his side of the argument. The Liberal party's consistent view, against the background of the present shambles, is that we should abolish tolls. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the costs of collection are often more than the moneys that are raised.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Has the hon. Gentleman considered why the London orbital road should not be tolled? The problem of constructing motorways that carry high volumes of traffic is the amount of land that has to be acquired to deal with that traffic. The problems of collecting tolls on such roads are obvious. Much as one


might like to see tolls introduced, it is not physically possible to collect them, especially when there is so much pressure on land use. It is practical to collect tolls on bridges. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Tay and Forth bridges, for example, replaced ferries, for which there was a charge. The benefit that is enjoyed by those who are able to use the bridges far outweighs the tolls that they have to pay. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? Has he considered also the deficiency in his argument that the tolls have made only a small financial contribution? The toll charges have steadily declined in real terms, partly because of inflation and partly because of the profligate policies that the hon. Gentleman and others are advocating.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman's intervention—or speech—is most interesting when one considers that the Secretary of State for Transport, opening a transport museum in my constituency, told my constituents about the great days of the turnpike roads and said that we had moved on since then. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, we would revert to the time, two centuries ago, when there were tolls on such roads. Opposition Members believe that all roads should be free.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said that bridges had replaced ferries. The Clyde tunnel essentially replaced a ferry, and the Kingston bridge in the middle of Glasgow replaced the Govan ferry. If we are to be consistent, they should be tolled.

Mr. Bruce: Indeed. The fact that people depend on ferries for transport was behind the Select Committee's recommendation that we should introduce a road equivalent tariff, which, regrettably, the Government have now reneged upon.
This debate recurs year in, year out. It is high time that a consistent policy was followed, that all tolls were abolished, and that transport was speeded up efficiently and fairly in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. David Marshall: I support the new clause.
As regards the Erskine bridge tolls, the Government have acknowledged that there is no longer any possibility of achieving the original objective, which was to recover the construction costs and then to abolish the tolls. I appreciate that if tolls were abolished, we would have to decide how to meet the maintenance costs of the bridges. I believe that the costs should be the responsibility of central Government, and that maintenance should be carried out by local authorities on an agency basis, like the maintenance of motorways.
Only £ billion of the £10 billion derived from the taxation of the acquisition, ownership and use of motor vehicles returns to the roads. I was horrified to hear the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) say that the only reason for not imposing turnpike charges on roads was that the volume of traffic was too high. The motorist in this country has had a raw deal from successive Governments. Much more money is derived from the roads than is ever spent on them. The abolition of tolls would be a small step towards redressing the situation.
I hope that alternative employment will be found for anyone made redundant as a result of the abolition of tolls. That would not be difficult to arrange, because not many people are employed in the collection of tolls.

Mr. Home Robertson: In the British context, tolls on roads are a complete anachronism. It is natural for Tory Members to support anachronisms, and some of them have done so this evening.
If there were tolls on every motorway, major road or major bridge throughout the country—which is what the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) seemed to want —that would, in a way make sense. We would be back in the days of tolls and turnpikes. But, whether or not Government supporters have noticed it, we pay for our roads in a different manner. We pay for them through the road fund tax. The levy is a contribution towards the road fund. Apart from two bridges in England and Wales where there are tolls, people in England and Wales get the benefit of their entire motorway system free, after paying the road fund tax. People in Scotland, who have to make use of the Forth bridge, the Tay bridge and the Erskine bridge, if they wish to move around the country at all, have to pay tolls on trunk roads. Tolls are dated and there is no financial justification for them. Virtually every party in Scotland has made commitments to do away with them. It is time that they were abolished.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose—

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Are we not to have a response from the Official Opposition?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Might I say first, to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that new clause 11 would apply only to the Erskine bridge, as responsibility for the Forth and Tay bridges rests with joint boards, not local roads authorities, so they do not fall within the definition of public roads.
Regardless of the fact that new clause 11 does not achieve the purpose that the hon. Gentleman hopes to achieve, he will not be astonished to learn that the new clause is not acceptable to the Government. Our policy was reviewed and confirmed in 1979 at the election that we won. The manifesto on which we fought that general election campaign did not include the point about tolls that was included in the 1974 manifesto. Our policy is that toils should be charged on major estuarial crossings when the crossing confers exceptional benefits on the user in terms, for example, of time saved and journey shortening. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made the point about the ferries that preceded the Forth and Tay road bridges.
The Government's policy on toll bridges is well known. It is right that users, not taxpayers or ratepayers, should pay for the exceptional benefit that they confer. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly emphasise the fact that the toll bridges were built and funded on the understanding that they would be paid for by tolls. The only immediate effect on employment would be the difficulty faced by toll collectors.

Mr. Maxton: Anybody is capable of being aware of the employment implications of abolishing tolls but, in regard to the Forth bridge, it is hoped that there will soon be a fully automatic system that employs very few people.

Mr. Stewart: In that case the employment problems would be less. The Labour party was in power for five years, and for much of that time it held power with the co-operation of the Liberal party. For those five years the


policy of collecting tolls on major estuarial crossings continued. It did not change then and I regret to inform the hon. Member for Cathcart that it will not change tonight.

Mr. Maxton: I am deeply disappointed with the Minister's reply, although I must accept that, in the strict legal terms that he mentioned, new clause 11 is defective in that it would not get rid of the joint boards on the Forth and Tay bridges. I knew about that, but that does not undermine the principle that we ought to get rid of tolls.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, there are tolls on many bridges in England and Wales. However, only two that I am aware of are run by major authorities. I have a brother who lives near the Selby bridge. It is a privately owned wooden bridge and is in a deplorable state. It is on a major tourist route to east coast resorts such as Scarborough. Users are ripped off and there are queues for miles because of it. The bridge itself would create a bottleneck, but the collection of tolls doubles the queue and makes the position even worse.
That, of course, is precisely what the hon. Member for Stirling wants to see—private enterprise collecting tolls on our roads and bridges throughout the country. That is the nature of his philosophy. He wants to fill the pockets of every owner of every piece of land.
1.15 am
The principle of my amendment is good. I accept that the wording is defective, and I shall table a properly worded new clause on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

PROCEDURES FOR MAKING OR CONFIRMING CERTAIN ORDERS AND SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 233, in page 99, line 32, column 2, leave out 'premises' and insert 'land'.

No. 234, in page 99, line 35, column 1, leave out `premises' and insert `land'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 110, line 31, at end insert—
'22A Section 96(1) (leaving animal on, or allowing it to stray onto, road). Level 3.'.—[Mr.Allan Stewart.]

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 237, in page 117, line 24, at end insert—

'The Electric Lighting Act 1888 (c. 12)

In section 4 of the Electric Lighting Act 1888 (restrictions as to placing of electric lines etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in subsection (5), the words "the term 'street' shall include any square, court, or alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage or place whatever, and" shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 238, in page 119, line 42, after 'substitution', insert—
'(a) for any reference to a relevant telecommunications operator or a reference to the operator of any telecommunications code system for the purposes of which any telecommunication apparatus is kept installed in, under, along or across that road (or bridge); and (b).'.

No. 239, in page 119, line 45, leave out '(a)' and insert '(i)'.

No. 240, in page 120, line 1, leave out '(b)' and insert '(ii)'.

No. 241, in page 125, leave out lines 28 to 37.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 242, in page 133, line 28, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 243, in page 142, line 7, at end insert—
'(4) In section 7(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "local authority" there shall be inserted the following definition—
'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".'.

No. 244, in page 146, line 7, at beginning insert—
'(3A) In section 51(1), for the word "highway" there shall be
substituted the word "roads".'.

No. 245, in page 148, line 4, leave out `, wherever it occurs,'.

No. 246, in page 152, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (10).

No. 247, in page 158, line 30, at end insert—
'(16A) In section 209 (provision as to telegraphic lines)—

(a)in subsection (1), the words ", 200" shall cease to have effect, and for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" in the first and second places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road", and in the third place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "roads".'.

No. 248, in page 162, line 43, leave out `(6)' and insert '(8)'.

No. 249, in page 163, line 41, at beginning insert—
'—(1) The Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2)'.

No. 250, in page 163, line 41, leave out
'of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979'.

No. 251, in page 163, line 45, at end insert—
'(3) In section 13(8) (exercise of powers relating to breaking up of streets, etc.), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "roads".'.

No. 252, in page 167, leave out lines 17 to 40.

No. 253, in page 170, line 29, leave out from beginning to '(interpretation)' in line 35 and insert—
'In section 75 of the Transport Act 1982'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 254, in page 170, line 37,
`(4) In Schedule 2 (fixed penalty offences confined to Scotland) after the list of offences under the Road Traffic Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following words—

OFFENCES UNDER THE ROADS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984

Section 63(1) Conveying insecure load on drawn vehicle.
Section 63(2) Permitting child to drive drawn vehicle.
Section 93(1) Dropping and failing to remove mud etc.
Section 122(3) Carrying projecting load.
Section 122(5) Driving on footway, etc.
Section 122(6) Parking motor vehicle on cycle track.".'.

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in page 170, line 39, after '1983', insert (interpretation)'.
This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 256, in page 171, line 12, at end insert—

'The Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)

. — (1) The Telecommunications Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 10(4)(b) (exceptions and conditions in licence under section 7), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(3) In section 98 (use of conduits for telecommunication purposes)—

(a) in subsection (5), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(b) in subsection (9), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".

(4) In Schedule 2 (the Telecommunications Code)—

(a) in paragraph 1(1)—

(i) the definitions of "maintainable highway" and "street" shall cease to have effect;
(ii) The following definitions shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order— "'public road' means a public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 other than one which is a footpath or a bridleway that crosses, and forms part of, any agricultural land or any land which is being brought into use for agriculture;
'road' has the meaning given by section 1(3) of the said Act of 1950";
(b) in paragraph 1(3), for the word "street" there shall be. substituted the word "road";
(c) in paragraph 1(4)—

(i) for the word "street" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the word "road";
(ii) for the words "street is a highway which" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(d) Paragraph 1(5) shall cease to have effect;
(e) in paragraph 2(8)(a)—

(i) for the word "street" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(ii) the words "(which for this purpose shall be deemed to extend to Northern Ireland)" shall cease to have effect;
(f) in paragraph 3(5), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(g) in paragraph 9(1), for the word "street" in the first, second and third places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road";
(h) in paragraph 9(2)—

(i) for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(ii) for the words "maintainable highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road";
(i) in paragraph 9(3), for the words "Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984";
(j) in paragraph 19(1), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(k) in paragraph 21(10), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";

THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 (C. oo)

. —(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 1 (traffic regulation orders)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "and to section" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall be the roads authority.";
(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "local" there shall be inserted the word "roads";
(ii) for the words "trunk road" where they first occur there shall be substituted the words "road for which he is the roads authority"; and
(iii) the word "trunk", where it occurs for the second time, shall cease to have effect; and
(c) in subsection (4), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(3) In section 2(4) (preservation or improvement of amenity), for the words "authority (as defined in section 1(2) (a) of this Act)" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority".

(4) In section 9, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(2) The authority having power to make an experimental traffic order shall be the roads authority or (where the experimental traffic order is made with the consent of the Secretary of State in relation to a length of road for which he is the roads authority) the local roads authority which would, with his consent., have power to make a traffic regulation order under section 1(2) and (3) of this Act in relation to the length of road.".

(5) In section 10 (supplementary provisions as to experimental traffic orders)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words "the highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(b) in subsection (3), for the words "a highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(6) In section 14 (temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic on roads)—

(a) in each of subsections (1) and (3), for the word "highway" where it occurs for the—

(i) first time there shall be substituted the words "roads"; and
(ii) second time there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(c) in subsection (5)—

(i) for the word "highway", where it first occurs and where it occurs in paragraph (a), there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads"; and
(ii) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph— "(b) where the initiating authority is not the roads authority for the alternative roads (such roads authority being in this paragraph referred to as the 'second authority' ) and the second authority is —

(i) a local roads authority, be made by order made by the initiating authority with the consent of the second authority;
(ii) the Secretary of State, be made by order made by the second authority on the application of the initiating authority.".

(7) In section 17(1) (restrictions on use of special road) for the words "1 of the Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".

(8) In section 18(1) (one-way traffic on trunk roads), for he words "1 of the Trunk Roads Act 1946" there shall be substituted the words "5 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".

(9) In section 19(1) (regulation of use of highways by public service vehicles), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(10) In section 21(3) (interpretation), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(11) In section 23 (powers of local authorities with respect to pedestrian crossings)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words "trunk roads" there shall be substituted the words "roads for which the Secretary of State is the roads authority"; and
(b) in subsection 5(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(12) In section 24 (duty of Secretary of State to establish pedestrian crossings), for the words "trunk roads" there shall be substituted the words "roads for which he is the roads authority.".

(13) In section 29 (prohibition of traffic on roads to be used as playgrounds), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(14) In section 32(4)(a) (interpretation), for the word "highway" there shall be subsituted the word "roads".

(15) In section 34 (which is extended to Scotland by section 120 of this Act and which relates to the provision of access to premises through off-street parking places), in subsection (1)(a), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".

(16) In section 37(1) (extension of powers for purposes of general scheme of traffic control), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(17) In section 38(3) (power to charge for parking place for public service vehicle), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".

(18) In section 45 (designation of paying parking places on highways)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" where it occurs for the first and third times there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads"; where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the word "road"; and for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads";
(b) in subsection (3)(c), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(c) in subsection (7)(c), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(19) In section 5 3(1) (content of designation order), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(20) In section 55 (financial provisions relating to designation orders)—

(a) in subsection (4)—

(i) for the word "highways", where it occurs for the first, second and third times, there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d), for the word from "of any work" to the end there shall be substituted the words—
"purposes of a project connected with the doing by the roads authority (whether or not the local authority) of anything which, within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, constitutes the improvement of a road in the local authority's area."; and
(b) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.

(21) In section 64(4)(c) (placing of traffic sign on or near road), in each of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".

(22) In section 65 (powers and duties as to placing of traffic signs)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "a highway" there shall be substituted the words "the roads"; and
(b)in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

(23) In section 66 (traffic signs for giving effect to local traffic regulations etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(b) in subsection (2)(d), for the words "385 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892" there shall be substituted the words "60 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".

(24) In section 67(1) (emergencies and temporary obstructions), for the word "highway". in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".

(25) In section 68 (placing of traffic signs in connection with exercise of other powers), in each of subsections (2) and (3), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(26) in section 69 (general provisions as to removal of signs)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(ii) for the words "the roads" there shall be substituted the words "a road";
(b) in subsection (2) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(c) in subsection (3), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

(27) In section 70(1) (default powers of Secretary of State as to traffic signs), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

(28) In section 71(1) (power to enter land in connection with traffic signs) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

(29) In section 77 (traffic signs modifications as respects trunk roads), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road for which the Secretary of State is roads authority".

(30) In section 78 (modifications in relation to roads where parking permitted without lights)—

(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(31) In section 79(5) (advances by Secretary of State towards expenses of traffic signs), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

(32) In section 80(1) (interpretation), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(33) In section 83 (directions as regards what roads are restricted roads)

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road managed and maintained by him"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "a trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "managed and maintained by the Secretary of State".

(34) In section 84(2) (powers as regards speed limits on roads other than restricted roads), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road for which he is the roads authority".

(35) In section 85 (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road managed and maintained by him"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "a trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "so managed and maintained".

(36) In section 92 (bollards and other obstructions on roads)—

(a)in subsection (1), for the word "highway", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(b) in subsection (4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) where the order referred to in subsection (1) above has been made as regards a road managed and maintained by the Secretary of State, may be placed on the road by him; and
(b) where the order has been made as respects a road other than one so managed and maintained, may be placed on the road by the local roads authority.".

(37) In section 93(1) (powers of Secretary of State in relation to functions under section 92) for the words from "trunk" where it first occurs to "that point" there shall be substituted the words "roads managed and maintained by him he may authorise or require the roads authority for any other road which at that point leads into or crosses the road so managed and maintained".

(38) In each of sections 100(5)(c) and 106(8)(c) (interpretation), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(39) In section 120(2)(e) (evidence in certain proceedings)—


(a) for the words "Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and
(b) for the words "that Act"—
(i) where they first occur, there shall be substituted the words "Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971"; and
where they occur for the second time, there shall be substituted the words "the said Act of 1971".

(40) In section 122(1) (exercise of functions by local authorities), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".

(41) In section 131 (application of road traffic enactments to Crown roads)—
(a) in subsection (2), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(b) in subsection (7)(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(42) In section 132(5) (special provisions as to certain Crown roads), for the words "highway authority shall include power to give the like directions to the local authority concerned" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority shall include power to give the like directions to them".
(a) in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b), and the word "and" immediately preceding that paragraph, shall cease to have effect;
(b) for the definition of "local highway authority" there shall be substitued the following definition—
"'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(c) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(d) for the definition of "road" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road' and 'roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(e) in the definition of "special road"—
(i) the word "or", where it occurs for the second time, shall cease to have effect;.and
(ii) after the words "1980", where they first occur, there shall be inserted the words "or section 7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984,".

(44) In Schedule 9 (special provisions as to certain orders)—
(a) in paragraph 19(b), for the words "28(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966" there shall be substituted the words "11(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; and
(b) in paragraph 25, for the word "highway", where it occurs for the first and third times there shall in each case be substitued the word "road"; and where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the word "roads".'—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 9

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No 257, in page 172, line 20, at end insert—
'7. In relation to an order under section 3 of the Special Roads Act 1949 coming into force before the appointed day within the meaning of section 2 of the Telecommunications Act

1984, section 20 of the said Act of 1949 shall have effect, notwithstanding any repeal made by this Act, as it had effect immediately before that appointed day. '. —[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 258, in page 173, line 29, at end insert—


'51 &amp; 52 Vict, c.12
The Electric Lighting Act 1888.
In section 4(5), the words "the term 'street' shall include any square, court, or alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage or place whatever, and".'.

No. 259, in page 176, line 53, column 3, at end insert
'In section 209(1), the words ", 200".'.

No. 260, in page 178, leave out lines 6 and 7.

No. 261, in page 178, line 24, at end insert—


'1984 c.12.
The Telecommunications Act 1984.
In Schedule 2, in paragraph 1, in subparagraph (1) the definitions of "maintainable highway" and "street", and subparagraph (5); and in paragraph 2(8)(a) the words "(which for this purpose shall be deemed to extend to Northern Ireland)".




In Schedule 4, paragraphs 9(4)(g), 17, 19, 26, and 51.


1984 c. 00
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
In section 1(3), the word "trunk" where it occurs for the second time.




In section 34(1), the word "in England or Wales".




Section 55(5).




In section 142(1), in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause

RELIEF OF RATES IN RESPECT OF LANDS AND HERITAGES

PARTLY OCCUPIED FOR A SHORT TIME

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 5, insert the following new clause:

". After section 243 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 there shall be inserted the following section—

Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time.

243A.—(1) If it appears to the rating authority that part of any lands and heritages included in the valuation roll is unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the authority may request the assessor to apportion the rateable value between the occupied and unoccupied parts and on being thus requested the assessor shall apportion the rateable value accordingly.

(2) As from whichever is the later of the following—
(a) the date upon which lands and heritages the rateable value of which has been apportioned under section (1) above became partly occupied;
(b) the commencement of the financial year in which the request under that subsection relating to those lands and heritages was made,
until whichever of the events specified in subsection (3) of this section first occurs, the value apportioned to the occupied part of the lands and heritages shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the rateable value ascribed to the lands and heritages in the valuation roll.

(3) The events mentioned in subsection (2) above are—
(a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;
(b) the end of the financial year in which the request was made;
(c) a further apportionment of the value of the lands and heritages taking effect under subsection (1) above.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above, if it appears to the rating authority that the part of the lands and heritages which was unoccupied at the date of an apportionment of the rateable value thereof under subsection (1) above has continued after the end of the financial year referred to in that paragraph to be unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the authority may direct that the apportionment shall continue to have effect for the next financial year; and subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (c) above shall have effect in relation to that year accordingly.

(5) In this section "financial year" has the meaning assigned to it by section 96(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

(6) This section shall have effect as if it had come into force on 1st April 1984."."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 11.

Mr. Ancram: These amendments are intended to help business ratepayers, and amendment No. 1 gives rating authorities absolute discretion to remit rates payable on the unoccupied part of the property, so that rates would be payable only on the part continuing in use.
Amendment No. 2 provides for non-domestic property to qualify for remission of rates where it is used only for keeping plant, machinery or equipment which was used,

or which is intended for use, only on the property. Relief would not be available on premises to which plant was brought for storage, nor in respect of unused plant or premises remaining in occupation.
Amendment No. 11 provides for the measure in amendment No. 2 to come into force on 1 April 1985. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 10

JURISDICTION IN VALUATION MATTERS OF LANDS TRIBUNAL FOR SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 7, line 39, after "decline" insert "with reason stated"

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a straightforward amendment, proposed from the Opposition Benches in another place. It would require the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to state its reasons if it declined to hear a valuation case referred to it. That seems eminently reasonable, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

COMMON PARTS OF SHOPPING MALLS NOT TO BE ENTERED SEPARATELY IN VALUATION ROLL

Lords amendment: No. 4, after clause 14, insert the following new clause:
. After section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Common parts of shopping malls not to be entered separately in valuation roll
8A. There shall not be entered separately in the valuation roll any part of a covered shopping mall, being a part the sole or main purpose of which is to serve two or more of the lands and heritages comprised in the mall.".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 5, the amendment thereto and Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Ancram: The first amendment is really required for the removal of doubt. There is every possibility that, given time, its effect would be achieved through litigation, but the Government considered it preferable to put the position of shopping malls beyond doubt.
It had been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that there may be a growing double rating problem, whereby the common parts of shopping malls are both separately valued and taken into account in the valuation of the shops to which they give access. I congratulate my hon. Friend on pointing that out during the course of the Bill.
The amendment seeks to remove that possible problem by preventing separate entries from being made in the roll for such common parts. That would accord with the practice south of the border. The second amendment makes this effective from 1 April 1985.
Amendment No. 5 is a simple amendment introduced for the avoidance of doubt to prevent cross-border


anomalies from arising. The Government have introduced a similar amendment to the Rates Bill to provide necessary clarification of the law in England and Wales. This makes similar provision to existing case law in Scotland. As there may be a few cases where different treatment could arise, it seems prudent to ensure parity of treatment by making parallel provision for the avoidance of doubt.
The associated amendment to clause 19 makes this substantive provision effective from 1 April 1985. Unfortunately, the amendment as originally presented was drafted to refer to the ascertainment of gross annual value, whereas moorings that are in valuation will be valued to net annual by virtue of the 1956 Act and reference should correctly to be to that. For that reason, we have introduced the further amendment to substitute the word net for gross. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause

EXEMPTION FROM VALUATION AND RATING OF CERTAIN MOORINGS

Lords amendment: No. 5, insert the following clause:
. After section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 there shall be inserted the following section—

Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings

8AA.—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the gross annual value of any lands and heritages no account shall be taken of any mooring to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to any mooring—
(a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and
(b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device—
(i) which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and
(ii) which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time."."

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 4, leave out 'gross' and insert 'net'. — [Mr. Ancram.]

Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We are just about to come to the end of the Rating and Valuation (Amendmėnt) (Scotland) Bill, and it is appropriate to say a word or two about this group of amendments.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was praised. I hope that he will not resent it if I say that that was a little extravagent, because the matter came from the Confederation of British Industry——

Mr. Michael Hirst: Why did the hon. Gentleman not support it?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is being a little aggressive. I am sure he will remember that he tabled a new clause, which, thanks to the Bill being guillotined, was not discussed in Committee. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman does not know whether we would have supported him then. However, he knows now.
I welcome the amendments, but I regret that we have had an extremely difficult and controversial Bill on our hands, and despite all the efforts that were made in the other place, none of the amendments that we are discussing overcomes our objections.
This has been a miserable and squalid affair, but at least we are ending it with some agreed, though minor,

improvements to the rating provisions. For that, at least, I am grateful. No doubt for those who are worried about shopping malls or moorings, there is some minor consolation in the improvements, but I repeat that the Bill as a whole has been damaging and destructive and will be bitterly regretted by those who, with some impartiality, look at what is in the best interests of local government and democracy in Scotland and the workability of our political and democratic system.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 15

COMPARISON WITH HEREDITAMENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 10, line 39, leave out "the" and insert
—
(a) there is no

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10.

Mr. Ancram: Certain doubts have been expressed as to the effects of clause 15, and these amendments are intended to aid clarity for the avoidance of doubt.
The first of these amendments specifically provides that comparisons may be made in two circumstances—the first where there is no evidence available and the second where available evidence is not adequate. The amendments also make clearer that English valuations cited in Scottish cases are to be treated as rents as at the date at which the valuations were struck. Perhaps more important, they make clear that any relevant actual English rents may continue to be cited as at present, in addition to the new evidence which will now be allowable
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will recall that those were all points that he raised in Committee.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to agree with the other place on this matter. I am grateful to the Minister for his support for what seem to be minor but sensible changes. I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I say that it is an area where party politics does not normally intrude—and it does not on this occasion. However, it is also an area where there is an enormous amount of anxiety and where there was more controversy in some ways and more widespread public interest than in many other parts of the Bill. I remember with great clarity the complicated discussions about the likely impact of clause 15 on the rating of football grounds, racecourses and several other facilities in Scotland, and the deep feeling that there was injustice compared with what happened south of the border.
I know that the Minister holds firm to the view that the contractors' principle has died with this set of provisions — [Interruption.] It is no longer relevant. In any case, where the contractors' principle could be prayed in aid under current practice, there will now be an opportunity of having recourse to the English comparators that are introduced into Scottish valuation law under the new provisions. I doubt how effective this will be and how far


we have pushed Scottish law beyond its present frontiers of the Portland Cement case. Obviously, we shall watch this with care in future.
I assure the Minister that we shall not be closing the book when the Bill is enacted. Many people will wish to ensure that the Minister's hopes—I am sure that they are genuine — will be realised. If they are not, we reserve the right to bring the matter back before the House to see whether we can do better on another occasion.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 13 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 2

VALIDITY AND DATE OF OPERATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 24, line 15, leave out "on oath".

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a common sense amendment arising from comments made in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It restricts the powers of the assessor of public undertakings to what is necessary to enable him to carry out his modern statutory functions. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Finance (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to persons appointed as deputy Commissioners for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Julian Amery, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. John Biffen, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Paul Bryan, Mr. Edward du Cann, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. John Morris, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. David Steel, and Mr. Peter Thomas, be members of the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Ancient and Historic Monuments (Wales)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: I realise that the subject of the debate is unlikely to rivet the attention of every right hon. and hon. Member. The matters are of importance to Wales and the Welsh, and I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to them.
On 3 March The Guardian printed a lengthy article by Mr. Martin Walker which was highly critical of the Secretary of State for Wales and the way in which his Department exercised its responsibilities for ancient monuments in Wales. The article was headed:
Bringing in the bulldozers while there's still work for the spade.
It seemed to reflect a good deal of briefing from one of the four archaeological trusts in Wales, the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust, and it concentrated mainly on waht it saw as a lack of attention given to sites of archaeological significance. By implication, it accused the Welsh Office of almost everything from incompetence to philistinism. In particular, it included a quotation from Dr. H. N. Savory, former keeper of archaeology at the national museum of Wales and chairman of the Gwent/Glamorgan archaeological trust. He said:
The Welsh Office and the Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, have failed in their statutory duty to protect the heritage of Wales. I fear that the protection given to our ancient monuments under successive Acts of Parliament is being gradually obliterated.
That is a serious charge, and it comes from an eminent source.
What was particularly significant about the article was that individual cases were quoted in detail. It is always easy for critics to make generalised attacks, and in these circumstances it can be hard for those attacked to answer effectively. But the article in The Guardian gave chapter and verse, so we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State and the Department for a detailed and specific response to the allegations made. I trust that, in replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do just that, as well as reassure the archaeological community and the public in general.
I hope that my hon. Friend will deal fully with the position of Caerleon, which is dwelt on at some length in the article. Anyone with historical interests, quite apart from the residents there, must be concerned to read about threats of unrestrained development and the apparent absence of the necessary protective statutory measures. Caerleon contains one of the most significant Roman sites in Europe, and it should be of prime concern to conserve the site positively and effectively.
The article also went into some detail about a site on the outskirts of Caerleon, called Bulmore, where it is suggested that statutory protection is required for a substantial area but that the Welsh Office refuses to recognise the site. It is most important that interested people should know what is contemplated there and what is likely to occur. Apart from that, the article makes detailed reference to several other problems that appear to have arisen on sites elsewhere, for example, at Cowbridge, Coed-yr-Hendre and at Coity in my constituency. Although the allegation about Coity castle


is not as serious as some of the others and although I am satisfied, after making some inquiries, that the allegation is somewhat misleading, I hope, nevertheless, that my hon. Friend will take time to respond to this case. Indeed, it is essential that all the points are answered in full.
What was especially disturbing was an allegation relating to the proposed road scheme at Chepstow, which it is said would destroy the remains of a Norman priory and a Roman settlement. That issue must be dealt with fully and convincingly.
A fundamental point that naturally arises from the article is the way in which statutory protection over such sites is exercised. I understand that sites can be scheduled as of national importance under the relevant Act, which then means that any person seeking to carry out works on the site will require specific consent from the Secretary of State. But as I understand what is said in the article, it appears that such consents have been granted far too freely during the past two years or so; and, of course, once development takes place on such a site, the remains are obliterated beyond recall. It is essential that this issue is covered in my hon. Friend's reply.
In archaeology matters, it is obvious that, in carrying out his duties, the Secretary of State must necessarily rely heavily on the quality and the extent of his specialist advice. The inspectorate of ancient monuments is of special importance here and yet, according to the article, it appears that its staff has been reduced to a minimum, which must make it impossible for the inspectorate to cover the entire principality adequately. I am not sure what basis The Guardian had for saying that there had been no move to replace the former principal inspector who, apparently, had taken early retirement, but I trust that my hon. Friend can assure us that he will be replaced and that there is no intention of running down that essential branch.
The article goes on from the recital of allegations about archaelogical sites to attack the Secretary of State's proposals to establish a new unit—Cadw—to assist him to discharge his responsibilities in the general area of ancient monuments and historic buildings. It is said that the Welsh archaelogical establishment is reacting with horror, fearing that
a handful of showcases like Caernarfon Castle will get the bulk of the funds in order to attract the bulk of the tourists, with second or third class status for the rest.
When the Secretary of State was interviewed on the "Newsnight" programme some time ago about The Guardian article he firmly rejected this allegation. However I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say more about the aims and purposes of Cadw and in such a way as to set at rest the fears that have been expressed.
To sum up, I shall quote again from The Guardian article which said:
Who is it that's so busily destroying the Welsh heritage? None other than the Welsh Office, the Government body actually charged with fostering it … and the Secretary of State appears to be totally unrepentant".
These are serious charges. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to these attacks in a detailed and convincing manner.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am glad of the opportunity to put the record straight following the appearance of the article in The Guardian on 3 March. I appreciate the

concern that this article has generated among those who, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, care about our heritage and, in particular, ancient monuments and sites of archaelogical interest. The Government have an excellent record on these matters and I value this opportunity to answer The Guardian's allegations. My right hon. Friend has carried out a personal investigation into the specific cases referred to in that article. As a result, I can best describe its content s as grossly distorted and misleading. It is riddled with factual errors and with uncorroborated statements and glaring omissions.
Before dealing with the specific cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, I should point out that the article refers only to individual cases in Glamorgan and Gwent and that sections of the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust have been conducting a public campaign in recent months to make known their own views on archaelogical priorities and procedures—priorities not always shared by others equally expert nor, indeed, by all members of the trust itself. The recent criticisms in The Guardian were not supported by comments from other parts of Wales nor did they extend to other parts of Wales, where just as much work of archaelogical importance is being carried out by the Government or with the help of Government funds.
The article refers to Caerleon and the highway site at Bulmore in Gwent as among the most important Roman sites in Europe. It fails to mention that, because we share that view, we have provided for the construction of a building to cover and protect the Roman baths at Caerleon — at a cost of over £350,000. This will ensure the permanent preservation and presentation to the public of these remarkable remains. It is odd that this important work is not mentioned at all in the article; but I suppose that, as it clearly demonstrates a determination to conserve the Roman remains at Caerleon, it would not sit easily in an article seemingly intent on proving the opposite.
As to the alleged 10 development threats at Caerleon, only one application has been determined by the Welsh Office so far. This was an application by the National Museum of Wales for permission to extend its museum building at Caerleon for the benefit of visitors to the site. Permission was granted, subject to certain conditions. The bodies which the department consulted before considering the application, that is, the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales, the Council for British Archaeology, the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust and the relevant local authorities, were completely content that we should grant permission.
I am aware of the three proposals referred to as major threats by The Guardian. One relates to proposed extensions to an existing school building—it is currently under consideration. The second — in respect of proposed works at the south gate site—has not yet been received. The third — and most serious — is at a formative stage and I understand that, even if it is pursued, any firm proposal is probably more than a year away. In any event, in all three cases, the sites in question have already been scheduled by the Department as being of national importance and any works will, therefore, require the Secretary of State's consent. I can assure my hon. Friend that any applications will be most carefully considered.
The allegation in The Guardian is that we grant such applications too freely. But, once again, the article has got it wrong. During the past two years, we have received 85


applications for scheduled monument consent to carry out works at sites of national importance throughout Wales. The majority of those applications related to conservation, presentation or excavation works, and, therefore, prima facie, are to be welcomed. They are not for the most part applications for development in the usual sense.
My right hon. Friend has granted unconditional consent in only four of those 85 cases. The remainder have either been refused — all in connection with proposed development schemes — or, in the majority of cases, granted consent subject to conditions which meet the necessary archaeological requirements. In all such cases, before any decision is taken, expert archaeological or architectural advice is obtained from within the Department and from national bodies such as the Council for British Archaeology and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales. Of course, such advice has sometimes to be weighed against wider social factors, including the need for development for the benefit of the many people who live and work in the area. However, the advice we receive is always carefully considered and, in the vast majority of cases, fully accepted and acted upon, as the statistics clearly show.
At Bulmore, it is alleged that a vast area "nearly a mile long" needed statutory protection. In fact there has been a broad consensus that, in addition to a field scheduled in 1971, an area measuring approximately 300 m by 250 m should be scheduled. That has been done. So that we can obtain more information about the surrounding area, there has been a full geophysical survey. If the results show that there are additional sites of importance, we shall not hesitate to schedule them and thus give them statutory protection.
Although there was some delay in completing the procedures necessary to schedule the additional area agreed, that delay did not lead to the loss of any remains of significance. The only work carried out in this area was the stripping of some 50–60 sq m of topsoil. That exposed the top course of a Roman stone wall, which was not harmed. No further work was done in that area.
The Roman wall illustrated in the article — which, incidentally, is not a town wall but a much less significant farmyard wall — was discovered, together with other remains, on a further area of land away from the fields being scheduled. This particular area of land was previously not thought to contain Roman remains and there had been no suggestions that it, too, should have been scheduled. However, the owner delayed the proposed work to enable the finds to be recorded by an archaeological investigation undertaken by the National Museum of Wales and funded by the Department. In view of those discoveries, a further area of land has subsequently been scheduled.
According to The Guardian article
a huge scheduled site of 22 acres at Usk disappeared from the Welsh Office's memory".
That statement cannot be reconciled with the fact that the area in question was scheduled by the Welsh Office in 1966, that the owner and local authority were notified, that an entry was made in the land charges register and that the Department has recently considered an application for scheduled monument consent for the erection of a new house, which will slightly impinge on the scheduled area.

The Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust has not objected to this development, as it will not disturb any Roman remains there.
We are accused of refusing funds for excavation of threatened sites at Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. We have no record of being asked for funds for that purpose, but we do have a record of a request from the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust for help in obtaining permission from the local planning authority for excavation work to be carried out in the area. Because of the intercession of the Department, permission was obtained for the trust to carry out the excavations, which have now been satisfactorily completed.
The Guardian article states that Marsh house at East Aberthaw was not afforded statutory protection because it was assumed by the Welsh Office that it was already a listed building. The fact is that, until a matter of weeks before its demolition, there was no suggestion that the building was worthy of protection. The article states that it was demolished so that the site could be used as a dump for waste ash from a power station. The fact is that consent for the ash dump had been granted to the Central Electricity Generating Board nearly 20 years ago. Demolition was begun in 1982 because the owners were concerned that it was unsafe and there had been reports of children playing in the ruins. The Department was then asked to consider scheduling the building and demolition was stopped for site visits and full assessment. At that stage we found ourselves compelled to take the view that what then remained of the building was not worthy of scheduling, and scheduling action was accordingly not taken.
As my hon. Friend said, the article alleges that at Coity castle my right hon. Friend granted consent for development work and informed archaeologists
only after the developers had dug to a depth of 8 feet".
In fact, officials had informed the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust of the proposal as soon as a planning application had been received. Neither the trust nor any of the other bodies consulted objected to the proposed works and consent was granted, subject to the trust being given notice of commencement of work, so that it could hold a watching brief. It appears that the developers subsequently began "clearance" works on the site without informing the trust, but it is wrong to suggest that the developers had dug to a depth of 8 ft. It is also nonsense to suggest that the trust had not been informed of the scheme: it had been consulted in advance by the Department.
At Coed-yr-Hendre, in Mid-Glamorgan, The Guardian relates a bizarre story of how the Welsh Office suggested that a thin high needle in the middle of a quarry should be protected but dropped the idea when it was pointed out that the only way archaeologists could gain access would be by helicopter — an amusing, but worrying, case, if true. The facts are very different, and recount a successful outcome, whereby the Department negotiated an agreement with the developers that a full year would be allowed for excavation of a substantial area before any quarrying was allowed. Small success stories such as this, we know, do not sell newspapers, but I see no justification for standing the story on its head and turning success into a failure.
The same is true of the proposed road scheme at Chepstow, which would, according to The Guardian article, destroy the remains of the Norman priory and a Roman settlement. It fails to mention that, of the possible


routes for the new road, the Department's preferred route has the backing of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, avoids the former priory church and crosses the priory area on land, some of which has already been investigated without result. The road will be on an embankment, and works excavations will be limited in the main to drainage trenches so, if there is anything of value below the surface it will not be destroyed. Furthermore, there will be an opportunity for archaeological inspection of this and other areas of ground uncovered as the works progress. This is perhaps the reason why the Glamorgan/ Gwent archaeological trust did not register any objection at the recent public inquiry, an inquiry which The Guardian hoped would
provide an opportunity for the archaeological case to be heard.
All the trust has done is to ask for an opportunity to conduct further investigations, a request to which we have already agreed in principle.
I hope that, by referring briefly to many of the individual cases mentioned in The Guardian article, I have illustrated what I meant in my opening remarks when I dubbed the article "grossly distorted and misleading". I hope the House will also understand why it is, perhaps, too generous to describe large parts of that article as "factual errors". They quite clearly present a totally false picture of the true state of affairs in respect of archaeological achievements in Wales.
I must also refer to the implication which runs through the article that we are not making sufficient funds available for archaeological and other conservation work in Wales. Finance for the ancient monuments activities of the Welsh Office has been increased from £1,105,200 in 1981–80 to £1,881,650 in 1984–85. Expenditure on maintenance and repairs of buildings in our care has now been doubled. Grants to owners have now been quadrupled and grants to the archaeological trusts in Wales have risen by about 25 per cent. during the same period. Finance for Historic Buildings Council grants has gone up from £898,500 to £1,584,000. Of course, money is not limitless, and each area of expenditure has, understandably, its claimants who would like to see more spent. However, I believe that we have provided enough money to meet the main needs. I think that we are entitled to some credit for increasing expenditure on the level of conservation at a time of economic difficulty when it has been necessary to cut expenditure generally.
Having referred to specific cases and the general financial provisions, I should perhaps deal with another part of The Guardian article which has caused concern in various quarters — the current strength of our ancient monuments inspectorate. The article states that when the Conservative party took office, there were five inspectors in Wales and now there are only two at work. What it does not mention is that one had recently had a baby and would be returning to work soon, one new appointee was to join the Department on 2 April and that the post of principal inspector had been advertised and has now been filled. The omission of important facts such as these can be as misleading as the more blatant misrepresentations. The inspectorate is in good heart. It comprises individuals of high quality and absolute integrity. The advice that it gives is known to be of that calibre and it is respected by all thoughtful people in this field.
Before concluding, I should like to take up the reference to "Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments". "Cadw" is, of course, Welsh for "keep". My right hon.

Friend announced in the House in January the proposed establishment of this new unit, which will administer and promote ancient monuments in our care and carry out other existing statutory functions in respect of monuments and historic buildings in Wales. The Guardian article suggests that its creation
implicitly recognises that the Welsh Office has made a poor fist of its responsibility for the physical fabric of the Welsh national memory".
The reality is that the Welsh Office record on conserving and protecting ancient monuments is good, but my right hon. Friend and I believe that there is much that can be done to improve the display, presentation and proper marketing of the ancient monuments in our care. It is our conviction that the care and protection of those monuments can, and should, go hand in hand with a more attractive and imaginative presentation to visitors of this important part of our national heritage. For that reason, additional specialist staff will be employed in the new unit to work alongside existing officials so that traditional conservation work can be carried out in unison with the task of making monuments more interesting and informative to visitors. I emphasise that the preservation of monuments will remain the prime objective and that the director of Cadw will be responsible to a steering committee which my right hon. Friend will chair and which will include the chairmen of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales and the Wales Tourist Board. Far from viewing the establishment of this new unit as recognition of past failures or a lack of concern, it is clear evidence of my right hon. Friend's determination to see that our heritage is both preserved and widely appreciated. It is also evidence of his determination to provide an effective link between all those concerned with every aspect of the care, presentation and appreciation of ancient monuments in Wales. The Guardian's alarmist view of the new unit is certainly not shared by the vast majority of those who have sent comments on the consultation paper which has been circulated. A large number of people including some members of the Glamorgan/Gwent trust have been quick to disassociate themselves from the absurdities of The Guardian article.
In conclusion, I should emphasise that we do, indeed, have an effective system for protecting our sites of archaeological interest and importance, which has operated smoothly and with a very large measure of consent from all those affected. Perhaps the key point to remember in considering The Guardian article is that in no case in the Gwent/Glamorgan area has scheduled monument consent been granted contrary to the views expressed by the Gwent/Glamorgan archaeological trust and the other expert bodies wich are consulted; there can, therefore, be absolutely no justification for criticism from that quarter of the way in which the consent procedures have been operated.
Where archaeological sites of the very greatest importance are concerned the work taking place at the Roman baths site at Caerleon — to which I referred earlier—speaks for itself. In the wider field of ancient monuments generally, my right hon. Friend's establishment of the new organisation Cadw reflects his determination to ensure that our heritage is effectively conserved for the benefit of the people of Wales, that the good standards of presentation that already exist at some of our monuments are extended to the others, and that


everything is done to increase their attraction and interest to the general public, including our many visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad.
In conclusion, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and thus allowing me to put the record

straight and to respond on an issue which—no matter how ill-conceived — has caused concern among those who care about our heritage.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.